Create a new project (use init_project for template-based creation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Tags | |
| title | Yes | Project title | |
| category | No | Category | |
| visibility | No | Visibility (default: private) | |
| description | No | Description |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a project, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, persistence, return values, or any other behavioral trait. The parenthetical about init_project is useful for routing but does not add behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parenthetical note about init_project adds valuable routing information without bloating the text.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema fully documents parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention what happens on success, what the response looks like, or any post-conditions. This is a noticeable gap, though not crippling for a straightforward create operation.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, which puts it at the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new project'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also differentiates from the sibling tool init_project by noting that init_project is for template-based creation, so an agent can tell them apart.
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 description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: use create_project for a new project, and use init_project for template-based creation. This is a clear condition and alternative, leaving little 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 target distinct resources (elements, knowledge, tasks, datasets, snapshots), but a few pairs blur boundaries: create_project/init_project both create projects, and pin_knowledge/set_knowledge_relevance both mark importance for future agents. The descriptions help separate them, but misselection is possible without careful reading.
Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun and have solid list_/get_/search_ conventions. However creation verbs are inconsistent (add_element vs create_entry vs save_dataset vs init_project), and deletion mixes delete_entry/delete_file with remove_element, making the naming pattern less predictable than it could be.
48 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, and the set includes many lifecycle variants (create/init/save/add, delete/remove, update/set) that inflate the count. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number makes it heavy and harder for an agent to navigate.
The core surfaces (projects, elements, knowledge, timeline, tasks, chats, datasets, snapshots, files) have solid create/read/update coverage, with search and session-handoff tools. Notable gaps exist: read_file references a download path for binary files that no tool provides, and there is no get_entry or delete/archive for projects, datasets, snapshots, or chat sessions.