list_projectsList all MultiLocale projects the authenticated user has access to. Returns a bounded Markdown and structured preview of project ids, names, locales, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| projects | Yes | ||
| projectCount | Yes | ||
| projectsTruncated | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a bounded Markdown and structured preview, and it scopes results by authenticated access. No contradiction with the annotations exists.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second sentence describes the return format, making the description easy to scan and immediately actionable.
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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, this description is complete. It tells an agent what scope applies, what fields will be present, and that the result is bounded, leaving no essential gap.
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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description usefully focuses on what the response contains instead of parameter documentation, matching the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.
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 states the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'all MultiLocale projects', clearly identifying what the tool does. It also defines the scope as projects the authenticated user has access to, which differentiates it from single-project tools like get_project and creation tools like add_project.
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?
It clearly communicates that this is the enumeration tool for projects the user can access, with no parameters or complex preconditions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a perfect 5, but the intended usage is obvious.
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.
The tool set separates resources (project, phrase, locale, team member) with clear action prefixes. Some read tools overlap: get_project vs show_project_overview, and list_phrases vs search_phrases, but descriptions clarify exact scope and parameters. No two tools appear to perform the same operation.
All 17 tools follow a consistent lowercase_snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. add_project, list_phrases, update_phrase, export_locale_dictionary. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or inconsistent abbreviation styles. This is exemplary.
At 17 tools, the set is on the heavy side for a localization server and above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. While each tool has a distinct purpose, show_project_overview and the find_* diagnostics add surface area and could be trimmed without losing core functionality. Still, the count is not excessive for the broad domain.
Phrases have full CRUD plus search/share, and projects have create/read/update/list, but delete_project is absent, leaving an obvious lifecycle gap. Team member operations are list-only, and locale removal is only possible indirectly via update_project. Core translation workflows work, but these gaps will block some common tasks.