Create a new project. title is required; description is one
line (the goal). project_rules is markdown inherited by all tasks
— stack/conventions/tone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| project_rules | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| inbox | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| instruction | No | ||
| upgrade_url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is mutating and not idempotent, so the description need not restate that. It adds useful context about how project_rules propagates to tasks, but it does not disclose persistence effects, error conditions, or any side effects beyond creation. This is acceptable for a simple create tool but not richly transparent.
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?
Three brief sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence addresses one of the two optional parameters. Every clause contributes meaning.
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?
For a simple creation tool with three parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the required and optional parameters adequately. It lacks an explicit pointer to update_project for existing projects, but that is a usage distinction rather than a missing operational detail needed to invoke this tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates well: title is marked as required, description is explained as a one-line goal, and project_rules is given concrete meaning as markdown covering stack/conventions/tone inherited by tasks. It does not elaborate on nullability or format constraints, but the schema already displays defaults.
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 opens with 'Create a new project,' naming an explicit action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_task and update_project by clearly targeting project creation, and the following sentences specify what counts as a project (goal plus inherited rules).
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?
The word 'new' implies this is for creation rather than updates, and the note that project_rules is inherited by tasks suggests when project-level context is needed. However, no alternative tools are named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given, so selection among siblings is largely left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource+action pairs: projects, tasks, skills, user rules, memory, and messaging are all clearly separated. The main ambiguity is update_task versus update_task_state, since update_task can also change state and plan_status, though the descriptions do point to the narrow intended use.
The naming is largely consistent verb_noun snake_case: create_project, update_skill, delete_task, list_projects, get_context, save_turn. Minor deviations include recent_messages lacking a verb, remove_user_rule versus delete_* style, and singular user_rule in mutations versus plural user_rules in listing.
With 27 tools, the server is over the typical well-scoped MCP range, even though it covers several domains. Some consolidation is possible, such as folding update_task_state into update_task and reducing the overlapping retrieval/search tools.
The tool set provides strong lifecycle coverage for projects, tasks, skills, and user rules, plus memory retrieval, agent messaging, and onboarding help. Minor gaps exist, like no standalone get_task or list_tasks and no explicit inbox listing, but get_project and get_context largely cover those needs.
