VarynForge

Create project

create_project

Create a new project — pass either a website URL or a niche description (or both). Returns projectId immediately; niche analysis and asset mapping run async. Poll get_project until niche.analysisStatus is ready. When the operator says whose site this is, pass siteRelation: mine (their own), client (an existing client), or prospect (a site they are pitching) — ask only if it is ambiguous, never guess. Optionally pass organizationId (see list_organizations) to create the project in a specific organization; it defaults to the personal organization.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`extras`	No
`context`	Yes	One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.
`website`	No
`originType`	No
`originInput`	No
`siteRelation`	No
`organizationId`	No
`nicheDescription`	No
`originDescription`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "context"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedAug 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / organizationId
```
Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / siteRelation

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "mine",
+    "client",
+    "prospect"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedAug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description substantially extends the annotations: it reveals the tool is non-blocking ('Returns projectId immediately; niche analysis and asset mapping run async'), prescribes a polling contract ('Poll get_project until niche.analysisStatus is ready'), and discloses the default org behavior ('defaults to the personal organization'). These behaviors are not visible in the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) or the schema, so the description carries the full burden and delivers.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences of dense, operational prose with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the async return behavior, the polling instruction, and the siteRelation rule — each sentence earns its place and reads as a crisp runbook.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 9-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical ground: return value ('Returns projectId immediately'), async lifecycle, polling protocol, and the siteRelation decision rule. Gaps remain — the required context param is never mentioned in the description, and the alternative input paths (extras, originType, originInput, originDescription) are silently absent — but the primary workflow an agent needs is fully specified.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate — and it does for some params: it clarifies website/nicheDescription ('pass either a website URL or a niche description'), defines each siteRelation enum value (mine/client/prospect), and explains organizationId's default. However, it leaves several params undocumented in both schema and description: the required context param, plus extras, originType, originInput, and originDescription. The compensation is partial, not complete.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Create a new project — pass either a website URL or a niche description (or both)' — and goes on to describe the async flow, making it unmistakable what this tool does. It differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_project as the polling target and list_organizations for org context, so an agent can distinguish it from the many get_/list_ tools nearby.

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?

The description gives clear operational context: what inputs to provide (website URL, niche description, or both), when to poll get_project, and how to handle siteRelation ('ask only if it is ambiguous, never guess'). It references sibling tools (get_project, list_organizations) for follow-up steps but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives.

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

All VarynForge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions carefully cross-reference close alternatives (e.g., add_article_suggestion vs create_article_suggestion_with_input vs accept_idea). A few brief/read variants like get_article_brief, get_write_handoff, and download_brief_markdown could still be confused despite helpful explanations, so the set is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern throughout: get_*, list_*, create_*, update_*, set_*, add_*, delete_*, start_*, expand_*, etc. Even the less common names like lint_draft and remap_asset are still clear verb_noun constructions.

Tool Count1/5

At 57 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold for a single MCP server. Even for a broad content workflow, the surface is overwhelming and would benefit from consolidation or splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full content lifecycle: project setup, research runs, opportunity clustering, suggestion creation, brief generation, drafting, linting, publishing, reporting, and account management. Minor gaps exist—destinations and projects cannot be deleted via MCP, and there is no direct update for article suggestion metadata—but these are workable via the web UI or existing tools.

Resources

Need Help?