List the RevScope projects on this account. Their names are what run_query takes, and it takes them exactly as spelled here.
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?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares that this is a safe read operation and is consistent with 'List'. Beyond that, the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral contract: the names must be consumed exactly as spelled, so there is no normalization or case-folding.
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 short sentences and no wasted words. The resource is front-loaded, and the downstream contract follows immediately.
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 no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape. However, the description only hints that project names are returned and says nothing about other fields or ordering. It gives enough detail to call the tool correctly, but not enough to interpret the response fully.
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?
This tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the baseline score of 4 is right. There is nothing in the parameters to clarify further.
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 RevScope projects on this account.' It also implicitly separates itself from run_query by framing its output as run_query's input, though it does not explicitly state how it differs from get_schema.
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 clause 'Their names are what run_query takes' clearly implies the workflow: call this first to obtain valid project identifiers. What is missing is any exclusion case or note about what to do if the account has no projects.
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.