validation.create_projectCreate a private idea-validation workspace within the selected SparkLaunch project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| business_name | Yes | ||
| target_market | No | ||
| business_model | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| business_description | Yes | ||
| unique_value_proposition | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write behavior is expected. The description adds useful context by noting the workspace is 'private' and scoped to a selected project, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what the created workspace contains.
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?
A single, focused sentence conveys the core purpose with no filler. The key qualifiers 'private' and 'within the selected SparkLaunch project' are front-loaded, making the tool's scope immediately clear.
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 description is too thin for a 7-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage. It does not explain the meaning of the required business fields, how project_id selects the parent project, or the purpose of idempotency_key, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.
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 must compensate, but it only explains the tool's overall purpose and not any of the 7 parameters. Parameter names like business_name and target_market are somewhat self-explanatory, but the role of project_id and idempotency_key is left entirely to inference.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a private idea-validation workspace within the selected SparkLaunch project.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like projects.create and landing.create_project by framing it as a validation workspace nested inside an existing project.
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 clear context: this tool is used to create a validation workspace within an existing SparkLaunch project, implying the user should already have a project in mind. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'within the selected SparkLaunch project' phrasing provides enough situational guidance.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.