GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_project_create

DestructiveIdempotent

Create a new GitFlic project by specifying a title and alias, with optional owner, visibility, language, and description settings. Use it to set up repositories for code hosting.

Instructions

Create a new 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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "alias": "<alias>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_project_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`alias`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`language`	No
`isPrivate`	No
`ownerAlias`	No
`description`	No
`ownerAliasType`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on permission requirements, alias uniqueness, visibility defaults, or the meaning of idempotency for a create operation.

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 single sentence is tight and front-loaded with the verb, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — there is no wasted wording, yet also no useful content.

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?

For an 8-parameter, destructive, open-world create with no output schema and near-zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine ownership scoping, visibility defaults, or failure modes from this definition.

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 description coverage is only 13% (just the `raw` flag), leaving seven parameters such as ownerAlias, ownerAliasType, isPrivate, and language undocumented. The description supplies no meaning for any of them, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new project"), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate from siblings such as gitflic_project_edit or gitflic_project_get, though the create-vs-edit vs-get distinction is largely carried by the name.

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 versus alternatives, no preconditions such as authentication or the need for an existing owner (user/team/company), and no mention of what happens if an alias collides. The agent must infer all of this.

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

Deploy Server