phasefolio

list_scenarios

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all scenarios in a PhaseFolio project. Returns scenario IDs, names, created/updated timestamps, and top-line eNPV/rNPV. Use this to discover what scenarios exist before fetching one in detail.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	Yes	Maximum number of scenarios to return (1–200). Defaults to 50; raise for projects with many what-if branches.
`project_id`	Yes	UUID of the parent project whose scenarios to list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Scenarios in the project, newest first.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds return field specifics (scenario IDs, names, timestamps, eNPV/rNPV) and workflow context. Minor caveat: 'all' is qualified by the schema's limit parameter, but this is not a contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences: the first states action and returns, the second gives usage guidance. No redundancy, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return content, and distinguishes from siblings. The only minor 'all' vs limit nuance is resolved by the schema's parameter description.

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% for both parameters, with informative descriptions for project_id and limit. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'List all scenarios in a PhaseFolio project' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling get_scenario by noting the tool is for discovery 'before fetching one in detail.'

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly instructs 'Use this to discover what scenarios exist before fetching one in detail,' providing a clear when-to-use directive and implying get_scenario for detailed retrieval. This directly addresses usage context.

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

All phasefolio tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity or operation: get_* fetches specific objects, query_* searches datasets, list_scenarios enumerates, while triage_asset and verify_export are standalone actions. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity among the 13 tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase with underscores. The verbs (get, list, query, triage, verify) clearly indicate the action, and nouns identify the target. This uniform scheme makes the tool purpose predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped within the ideal 3–15 range. Each tool addresses a specific aspect of the drug-development analysis domain (project/scenario context, evidence, methodology, benchmarks, risk, landscape, SEC deals, dossier, verification, triage) without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The read-side surface is thorough for the domain: projects, scenarios, evidence, methodology, benchmarks, drug risk, landscape, SEC deals, dossier, export verification, and triage are all covered. The only minor gap is the lack of a list_projects tool, but get_project can fetch a known project, providing a workaround.

Resources

Need Help?