list_editor_projectsList your persistent Switch Editor projects, newest first, with media, scene, composition and render counts. Optional search matches the project name. Each project carries its own media and its saved chat history for every brain; the same project opens in the /editor page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 25, max 100. | |
| search | No | Optional. Part of a project name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context about return content (counts) and project characteristics (carries media, saved chat history, opens in /editor). This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention pagination or any edge cases.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then supplementary details. No fluff, every clause adds value. The structure is efficient and scannable.
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?
With no output schema, the description gives a fair amount of detail about the return (counts, media, chat history) and the /editor page association. It could be more explicit about the exact JSON structure or pagination behavior, but for a list tool with optional search and limit, it is reasonably 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% – both limit and search are described in the input schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only restates that search matches project name, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a clear verb-resource pair: 'List your persistent Switch Editor projects'. It adds ordering ('newest first') and enumerates the returned counts (media, scene, composition, render), making the tool's function unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like get_editor_project or create_editor_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 context is clear: this is for listing all persistent projects, optionally filtered by search. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_editor_project (for a single project) or how it differs from list_my_assets. The purpose is self-evident, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.
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.