HAOps MCP Server

haops_create_channel

Creates a new channel in a HAOps project using project slug and name, with optional description, type, and verbose response.

Instructions

Create a new channel in a HAOps project.

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "haops_create_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Channel name
`type`	No	Channel type (optional, default: custom)
`verbose`	No	If true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
`description`	No	Channel description (optional)
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool creates a channel, with no details on side effects, required permissions, error handling (e.g., duplicate name), or the role of the 'verbose' parameter affecting response.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but may be too brief for a 5-parameter tool. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks additional context that could be included without significant bloat.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a channel is, when to create one, the meaning of different types, or the response format despite having a 'verbose' parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new channel') within the context ('in a HAOps project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like haops_create_issue by specifying 'channel', though it could add more context about what a channel is used for.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 haops_update_channel or haops_delete_channel. No prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or conditions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server