List the user's projects with item counts.
These are the My Projects folders on quanterlab.com (saved items and
notes), not the lab's circuits: those are `list_my_primitives_projects`.
Returns project metadata only (name, description, category, item
count, timestamps). A project's items open on quanterlab.com, under
My Projects.| 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 establish the safe read-only profile, and the description adds valuable context by enumerating the returned metadata fields and explaining that project items open on quanterlab.com. It does not mention pagination, which is unlikely given zero parameters, or auth requirements, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then handles disambiguation, return contents, and item access in three short, purposeful sentences. There is minor repetition of item counts between the first sentence and the return-field list, but it does not waste space.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by listing name, description, category, item count, and timestamps. Combined with the explicit sibling distinction, it gives an agent everything needed to call and interpret this tool.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter behavior the description needs to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on return contents and scope instead.
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 a specific verb and resource (list the user's projects) and immediately distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling `list_my_primitives_projects`, clarifying that these are saved-item/note folders rather than lab circuits. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it does not do without inspecting the schema.
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 explicitly names the alternative tool for lab circuits and explains the domain distinction, which is strong routing guidance. It does not spell out a usage scenario beyond the implied 'use this to see My Projects folders,' so it falls just short of a full when/when-not guideline.
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.