betterpost_list_projectsReturns your projects, each with its relevance criteria (with ids) that define what counts as on-topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projects | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Your saved BetterPost token from a prior call (demo `bp_demo_…` or paid `bp_live_…`). Reuse the same token on every call and across conversations; omit only on the very first call to be issued a free demo token. Paid users may instead pass the key in the server URL (?key=…) or an Authorization: Bearer header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / _noteRemoved value: -{
- "description": "One-time note — e.g. a freshly issued demo token to save to durable memory and reuse.",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that projects include relevance criteria with ids, which is not evident from annotations alone.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key detail. No extraneous words.
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 has an output schema, zero parameters, and the description covers the essential purpose and a notable detail. For a simple list tool, it is fully complete.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. Schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 ('returns') and the resource ('your projects'), and adds specific detail about what each project includes (relevance criteria with ids). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (single project) or create_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 implies when to use (when you need a list of projects with relevance criteria) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparisons to alternatives like list_content.
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.