list_projectsList projects with their client, type, budget, and dates, optionally filtered to active-only. Answers "what projects am I working on?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | No | Filter to active (true) or paused (false) projects. Omit for all. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "budgetHours": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "clientName": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "endDate": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "fixedFeeAmount": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "isActive": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "projectType": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "startDate": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "clientName",
+ "projectType",
+ "isActive",
+ "budgetHours",
+ "fixedFeeAmount",
+ "startDate",
+ "endDate"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits, data freshness) beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.
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 sentences: first states function and output fields, second gives a use case. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.
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?
Description covers key fields and filter. Has output schema to define return structure. Minor gap: no mention of sorting or pagination, but for a simple list tool, it is largely complete.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described. The description mirrors the schema by mentioning the active filter. It adds no additional meaning or usage details beyond the schema.
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 verb 'list', the resource 'projects', and specifies the data included (client, type, budget, dates). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by offering an optional active filter and addressing a specific user question.
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 implies usage for viewing project overviews, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_summary or list_clients. No when-not guidance is given.
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.