list_projectsList the user's projects (most recently edited first) with the folder each is in; the one you are working in is marked current.
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_projects"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the sort order (most recently edited first), that each entry carries its folder, and that the active project is flagged — details an agent needs to interpret results without a follow-up call. One tension: annotations set readOnlyHint=false for what reads as a pure enumeration, and the description does nothing to clarify any side effects or scope limits (e.g. whether all projects or only accessible ones are returned).
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 sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts — ordering and the current-project marker — are front-loaded and stated compactly via the parenthetical and semicolon.
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?
For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and in what order, which is the main ambiguity. Minor gap: it does not say whether the list is scoped (e.g. owned vs shared projects) or bounded in size, which matters in a workspace with many projects.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filter/pagination semantics that the empty schema does not support.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the user's projects") and adds real scope detail: recency ordering, the containing folder, and a marker for the current project. It implicitly separates itself from get_project/open_project by being a plural enumeration, but it never names those siblings, so routing is inferred rather than stated.
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 listing behavior implies a browse/select use case, and the "current" marker hints at orientation within a workspace. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_project for a single project, list_folders for the folder hierarchy, or search_media-style lookups, and no stated preconditions.
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.