Done Bear MCP

List Projects

project_list

Read-only

List projects in the workspace. Filter by status: active (default), done, archived, or all. Returns up to limit projects; hasMore is true when more matched than were returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results; the response's `hasMore` reports truncation
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor from a previous call's `nextCursor`. Pass it with the same filters to fetch the next page.
`status`	No	Filter by project status	active
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes	True when more results matched than were returned
`projects`	Yes
`nextCursor`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the default status is active, that results are limited by `limit`, and that `hasMore` indicates truncation. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate pagination behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: what it lists, the filter options with default, and the pagination/truncation behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a read-only list tool with rich schema annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: resource, scope, filters, default, limits, and truncation signaling. The cursor mechanism is documented in the schema, so its absence from the description is not a gap.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description's status list, default behavior, and pagination mention largely paraphrase what the schema already states. It adds no significant new parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List projects in the workspace.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools like checklist_list, label_list, and task_list because the resource is clearly 'projects.' The status filter detail further clarifies the tool's scope.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this to list projects in a workspace, with optional status filtering. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it over the sibling tools without ambiguity.

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

All Done Bear MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and each family (checklist, comment, label, project, task) follows the same shape. The main blur is between search and task_list's optional search filter, and convenience tools like checklist_done overlap with checklist_edit.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is snake_case noun_verb (task_add, checklist_list, comment_remove), with consistent verb families across resources. A few outliers like get_context, search, and guide break the pattern, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this is a heavy surface for a task-management server and exceeds the 25-tool threshold. Several tools are convenience variants (task_done vs task_bulk_done, checklist_done vs checklist_edit) that could be consolidated or represented as parameters.

Completeness4/5

The core task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, edit, complete, reopen, archive, list, assign, and bulk operations, with full checklist and comment CRUD. Notable gaps are label deletion/renaming, project deletion, and search being limited to tasks, but these are minor for the apparent product scope.

Resources

Need Help?