List the projects in the connected LoopGantt account (requires a LoopGantt API key), with each project's workflow stages: use one of those stage ids as a task's status.
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?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: an API key prerequisite for the connected account and that the payload includes workflow stages per project. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or behavior on an empty account.
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: the resource, the auth prerequisite, the returned content, and the downstream usage, with no redundant phrasing.
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 zero-param list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back and the auth requirement. Minor gaps remain around result size or pagination, but nothing that would cause a mis-call.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List the projects in the connected LoopGantt account") and adds a distinguishing detail — the response includes each project's workflow stages. It is clearly separable from list_tasks and list_templates by resource, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Provides a concrete downstream use: "use one of those stage ids as a task's status," which tells the agent why and when to call this before creating or updating tasks. It stops short of explicit exclusions or stating the alternative when only task data is needed.
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.