list_projectsLists the JillionDB projects this key can see, with their database engine and table count.
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 annotation already declares the safety profile, so the description's contribution is the extra context it does add: results are filtered by the calling key's visibility, so absence of a project may mean no permission rather than no project, and the payload carries engine type and table count. It leaves out pagination, ordering, and any result-size limits, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the visibility scope, and the returned fields with no filler. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant detail (key-scoped visibility) appears before the payload details.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does name the two most useful fields plus the permission filter. What is missing is whether the list is paginated, capped, or ordered, which matters for a caller deciding whether one call gives a complete inventory.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain at the input level; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support, which itself prevents a caller from trying to pass a filter argument.
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 names a specific verb (Lists) and a specific resource (JillionDB projects), and immediately pins down scope with "this key can see" plus the fields returned (database engine, table count). The resource is unambiguously distinct from the siblings that operate on issues, proposals, or schemas.
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?
Usage is only implied: the read-only, zero-argument nature makes it obvious you call this when you need an inventory of projects. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, but for a parameterless lister the implicit guidance is adequate.
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.