celiums-memory

write_project_create

Creates a writing project (novel, screenplay, long-form) and returns a project ID for use with other write tools. Supports optional structure templates (three-act, save-the-cat, hero-journey, snowflake, free) for beat tracking.

Instructions

Create a writing project (novel, screenplay, long-form). Returns a project_id used by all other write_* tools. structureTemplate enables beat tracking against a known structure: three-act | save-the-cat | hero-journey | snowflake | free.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "write_project_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`userId`	No
`title`	Yes
`genre`	No
`premise`	No
`structureTemplate`	No	three-act \| save-the-cat \| hero-journey \| snowflake \| free
`wordTarget`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.5Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions return of project_id and structureTemplate usage, but lacks detail on side effects, idempotency, or error cases.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundancy, but second sentence could be more concise as parameter info.

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?

Tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. Description doesn't explain return format, parameter constraints, or usage context (e.g., required title).

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is low (17%). Description only adds meaning for structureTemplate; other parameters (userId, title, genre, premise, wordTarget) are not described beyond their names.

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?

Clearly states action (create), resource (writing project), and role as prerequisite for other write_* tools. Distinguishes from siblings like write_character_create.

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?

Explains when to use (create project) and implies necessity for other tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but clear context.

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