List your saved lab projects (circuits on the canvas), newest first.
Each row: the project's `id`, its name, how many cards its circuit has, how many
hypotheses are registered, and when it was created and last changed. The circuit, its
settings and its results stay on QuanterLab, where a project opens on the canvas. Run one
with `start_primitives_run` and its `id`.
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are sorted newest first, the circuit/settings/results are not returned here but stay server-side, and the exact rows emitted are enumerated. Pagination or result-count limits are not mentioned.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and ordering, followed by a compact row-by-row field list that earns its place because there is no output schema. The final sentence about state staying on QuanterLab is slightly indirect but carries the important 'no circuit payload returned' point.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields, which makes it largely self-sufficient. However, it omits whether the list is bounded/paginated and how it differs from list_my_projects, leaving a gap for an agent choosing between the two list tools.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still explains that returned `id` values are the handles consumed by `start_primitives_run`, giving the key field meaning beyond the empty schema.
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 — 'List your saved lab projects (circuits on the canvas)' — and clarifies the domain object (a project wrapping a circuit) versus the raw primitive catalogs in siblings like list_primitives. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named list_my_projects, which leaves one ambiguity unresolved.
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?
Provides clear forward routing: projects are opened on the canvas and executed via `start_primitives_run` with the returned `id`, which tells the agent exactly why and when to call this. No explicit when-not-to-use rule or comparison to list_my_projects is given.
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.