Skip to main content
Glama

List Your Durable Projects

project_list
Read-only

List durable house projects owned by the calling API key, most recently updated first. Anonymous (keyless) calls always return an empty list -- temporary anonymous projects are never listable, only resolvable directly by their house_ref. Requires an API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax projects to return, default 50, capped at 200.
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor -- pass the previous response's next_cursor to get the next page.
project_typeNoFilter by project type, e.g. 'house'. Omit for all types.
updated_sinceNoISO 8601 timestamp -- only return projects updated after this time.
include_deletedNoInclude soft-deleted projects (still owner-scoped). Default false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: ordering, the empty-list behavior for anonymous calls, the non-listability of temporary anonymous projects, and the API key requirement. These are not inferable from annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence carries useful information. There is no waste or repetition.

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?

Given the 5 fully-described parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential contextual elements: purpose, ordering, auth requirements, and the key limitation for anonymous calls. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. The ordering and anonymous behavior notes are tool-level behavior, not parameter semantics.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('durable house projects'), scoping it to 'owned by the calling API key' and specifying ordering ('most recently updated first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_get or project_delete.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear context: this is for keyed calls and owned projects, and clearly states when not to use it (anonymous calls return empty, anonymous projects are not listable but resolvable directly via house_ref). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, though the direct resolution hint implies project_get.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters perform near-identical functions: extract_image_colours, image_palette and palette_extract all extract dominant colours from images; colour_passport, colour_dna, colour_metrics and colour_cultural_risk all profile a single hex; and at least six compound 'complete package' tools (agent_brief, archive_report_brief, brand_report, design_session, image_brief, session_brief) overlap heavily in scope. The descriptions try to differentiate -- some even point to tool_guide for routing -- but the volume and similarity of clusters makes misselection likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clear domain_prefix_suffix pattern (colour_, palette_, archive_, brand_, accessibility_, project_) and within families naming is very disciplined (brand_guideline_specify/select/pdf/claims/status, project_get/list/versions/delete). However, a handful of outliers invert the order (extract_image_colours, ingest_image, render_colour_result, query_hex) and some descriptions reference tools that don't exist as endpoints (palette_from_concept, match_paint_system, get_colour_metrics).

Tool Count1/5

88 tools is far beyond any reasonable single-server surface, even for a platform spanning archives, branding, interiors and accessibility. The sheer number forces agents into a massive decision space, and many tools exist purely as convenience wrappers that replace chains of 3-6 other tools, suggesting aggressive consolidation was needed.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers an unusually broad domain -- archive search, colour science, palettes, branding, interiors, accessibility, image extraction, projects, and PDF/Word/Excel exports -- with very few dead ends for end-user workflows. Minor gaps: several compound-tool descriptions reference tools that no longer exist, and valid archive names are only discoverable via error messages rather than a dedicated listing endpoint.

Resources