Create a new project as the top-level container for all work. Define its name, description, status, and tags to organize tasks and epics.
Create a new project. Projects are the top-level container for all work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| tags | No | Tags for categorization | |
| status | No | Project status | active |
| description | No | Project description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that projects are top-level containers, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the action and provide a brief context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite good annotations and schema, the description omits return value information (no output schema) and does not describe default behaviors for optional parameters like status. A more complete description would mention created project details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'projects', and explains that projects are top-level containers. This distinguishes it from siblings like project_list and project_update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_update or epic_create. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.