list_projectsList all projects in the workspace. Call this first - most other tools need a project_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 25) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous call |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows | |
| pagination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clearly positive. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the tool's role as a prerequisite for other tools, which is not captured by the annotations or schema. No contradictions found.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second provides critical usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.
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 simple, read-only list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role as a first-step dependency, and the annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details. No meaningful gaps remain.
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%, with clear descriptions for 'limit' and 'cursor'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond saying 'all projects', which is consistent with the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool lists all projects in the workspace, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the sole project-listing tool and adds the important context that it should be called first because most tools need a project_id.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Call this first') and why (most other tools need a project_id). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource is distinct enough that alternatives are not relevant, so the clear context earns a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.