List the account owner's live projects.
This is not a pure read: if the owner has none, the portal creates
"Your First Live Project" and returns it. Tell the user when that name
appears and they had no live project yet.
Do not invent project ids. A later call that needs a specific project
uses `id` from this list as `ls_project_id`.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description explains exactly why: a missing project causes the portal to create 'Your First Live Project'. It goes further by telling the agent to surface that name to the user, which is actionable behavioral context no annotation could convey.
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?
Four short sentences, side effect front-loaded immediately after the purpose, and the cross-tool id convention placed last. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
Covers purpose, the surprising write side effect, user-facing communication duty, and the connection to downstream tools — everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result, even without consulting the output schema.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully documents the output field mapping (`id` → `ls_project_id`), though with an output schema present it needn't enumerate return values further.
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 with explicit scope ('the account owner's live projects'), which cleanly separates it from get_live_project (single project) and list_live_streams (a different resource). The follow-on sentences reinforce what the output represents.
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?
Gives concrete downstream guidance: use `id` from this list as `ls_project_id` in later calls, and explicitly warns against inventing project ids. It doesn't name sibling alternatives (e.g. use get_live_project when the id is already known), so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.
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.