chat-export-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

projects_create

Create a new project or folder in a provider's UI to organize chats. Requires an active browser binding with projects enabled on the browser.

Instructions

Create a project/folder on the provider UI. Prefer when organizing chats; does not create chats (use chats_create/chat_ask). Requires browsers_bind and allowProjects on the browser.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "platform": "<platform>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "projects_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Project/folder display name
`platform`	Yes	Provider id: chatgpt \| grok \| grok-x \| claude \| copilot \| qwen \| deepseek \| perplexity
`description`	No	Optional project description
`instructions`	No	Optional custom instructions for the project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.4Nov 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / description / description
```
Added value: +"Optional project description"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / instructions / description
```
Added value: +"Optional custom instructions for the project"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / name / description
```
Added value: +"Project/folder display name"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / platform / description
```
Added value: +"Provider id: chatgpt | grok | grok-x | claude | copilot | qwen | deepseek | perplexity"
```
First observedv1.0.3Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable prerequisite context (browsers_bind and allowProjects), which is not in annotations. However, it does not describe behavior like duplicate-name handling, failure modes, or whether the project is created immediately or asynchronously.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is stated first, followed by usage guidance and prerequisites. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with a complete schema and meaningful annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and prerequisites. It omits minor details such as duplicate-name behavior or return information, but no output schema exists so return values are not expected. The definition is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (name, platform, description, instructions) with descriptions and an enum. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a project/folder on the provider UI') and explicitly distinguishes it from chat creation by naming siblings chats_create and chat_ask. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context ('Prefer when organizing chats') and names alternatives for the chat-creation case. Prerequisites are stated ('Requires browsers_bind and allowProjects'). Lacks explicit when-not guidance relative to other project tools (e.g., projects_list or projects_delete), but overall the routing is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.