Atlasly

Saved Developments

list_developments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Purpose: list the connected user's saved Atlasly developments. When to use: only when the user asks to reopen or choose their saved work. Returns: up to 20 owned project names, addresses, coordinates and portable site_ref handles. Limitations: not a complete project history, options/revisions or document contents; never lists another user's projects. Requires the existing projects permission. Chaining: every response returns site_ref; pass it unchanged into another Atlasly tool to reuse the canonical site, coordinates, boundary confidence, LPA, evidence links, and project context.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_developments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_ref`	No	Canonical site_ref returned by any previous Atlasly tool. Pass it unchanged to chain the same resolved site into this call; address, search_area, or project_id will be filled from it when omitted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`status`	Yes
`details`	No
`message`	No
`sources`	Yes
`headline`	Yes
`site_ref`	Yes
`retryable`	No
`error_code`	No
`atlasly_link`	Yes
`error_source`	No
`human_message`	No
`key_data_points`	Yes
`top_constraints`	Yes
`confidence_notes`	Yes
`executive_summary`	Yes
`next_best_actions`	Yes
`top_opportunities`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds real value: the 'up to 20' result cap, the ownership boundary, and the 'existing projects permission' prerequisite. It doesn't say what happens when a user has more than 20 saved projects (truncation vs. pagination), which is the one behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Labeled Purpose/When/Returns/Limitations/Chaining sections make it scannable and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. The 'Returns' enumeration partly duplicates the output schema, a minor redundancy, but the density is appropriate for the amount of routing information conveyed.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers purpose, trigger, ownership scope, permission requirement, result cap, and the critical chaining contract for a nested site_ref parameter. With an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure further, and nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the nested site_ref shape is already fully documented. The description adds the chaining intent — pass site_ref unchanged to reuse canonical site, coordinates, confidence, LPA and evidence links — which is meaning beyond the field list, though it largely restates the schema's own site_ref description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list the connected user's saved Atlasly developments'), scoping it to the connected user's own saved work. That distinguishes it clearly from find_development_sites (searching new sites) and search_development_mentions in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ('only when the user asks to reopen or choose their saved work') and an explicit exclusion set (not a project history, options/revisions or document contents; never other users' projects). An agent can decide when to call this versus siblings without inferring anything.

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

All Atlasly tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?