list_internal_projects
List projects in the synthetic company workspace.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Agent Observatory Digital Twin
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'List projects' without indicating read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. Minimal transparency for a list operation.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately states its purpose. However, it could be improved by noting if any filtering or pagination exists, or by describing the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Per calibration, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.
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 the tool lists projects within a specific workspace ('synthetic company workspace'). It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), and is distinct from sibling tools that inspect environment or identity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection among siblings.
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.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the synthetic digital twin environment: inspecting cloud resources, inspecting identity, listing projects, querying customer data (decoy), reading runbooks, and rotating tokens (decoy). No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: inspect_*, list_*, query_*, read_*, rotate_*. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for monitoring and interacting with a digital twin. The count is neither too thin nor too heavy for its apparent purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key inspection and interaction actions for a digital twin, including environment, identity, projects, runbooks, and decoy boundaries. Minor gaps like a general 'list' or 'search' tool are acceptable for the synthetic context.