Skip to main content
Glama

List projects

projects_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the projects the caller can access in the organization, newest first, with the caller's permissions on each.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "orgID": "<orgID>"
    },
    "name": "projects_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of items to return in one page.
orgIDYesOrganization ID (org_...).
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. Omit for the first page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / orgID / description
      Added value: +"Organization ID (org_...)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: results are access-scoped to the caller and ordered 'newest first,' and each item carries the caller's permissions. It omits pagination behavior, which the schema handles.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence covering resource, scope, ordering, and return content with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema documentation of all three params, the description supplies enough: resource, access scope, ordering, and per-item content. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so orgID, limit, and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (projects), and scopes it to 'the projects the caller can access in the organization.' The projects_* family has no competing read siblings, so the resource name alone is distinguishing, though it does not explicitly contrast with projects_create.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Lists.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.