List all projects with optional status filter (active/archived/paused). Returns id, title, slug, webUrl, icon, and goals_count for each project. Use project-get for full details with goals breakdown by status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Статус: active / archived / paused |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already conveyed. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the exact return fields (id, title, slug, webUrl, icon, goals_count) and the optional status filter, which are not covered by the annotation.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields and an alternative tool mention. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
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?
The description fully covers the tool's purpose, parameter, return fields, and provides a pointer to the more detailed sibling tool. For a simple list operation with one optional parameter, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 input schema already documents the single 'status' parameter with the enum values active/archived/paused. The description repeats these values without adding new semantic detail, so with 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'List all projects with optional status filter', providing a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the returned fields and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'project-get' by noting 'Use project-get for full details'.
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 explicitly names an alternative tool ('project-get') and the condition for using it ('for full details with goals breakdown by status'). This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over the sibling, though it does not state exhaustive exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes (goal-create vs goal-update vs goal-delete), but the evidence-related tools (goal-add-evidence-text, goal-attach-evidence, goal-request-upload) and note tools (goal-add-note) have overlapping concepts that require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. Overall, the detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity, but a few tools could be easily confused.
The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a resource prefix (goal-create, goal-get, project-list, project-update). However, there are deviations like account-delete (noun-verb reversed), goal-todo, goal-summary, goal-tree, and goal-recent-unresolved that break the pattern. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
With 38 tools, this server has a very large surface area. Even for a complex planner with evidence management, the number exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Many tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., goal-add-note and goal-add-evidence-text), and the size may overwhelm agents during tool selection.
The tool set provides complete coverage of the domain: full goal lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, list, tree, move, reorder, block), evidence management (attach, request upload, text evidence, remove), acceptance criteria (add, update, remove, request change, resolve escalation), assumptions (add, update, remove, suggest, attach evidence), blockers, notes, project management (CRUD, dependencies), and configuration settings. No critical gaps are apparent.