List the projects on your account (archived included), each with id, slug, name, apiBaseUrl and archived, plus accountEmail — the account this token authenticates as. Requires an ACCOUNT-scoped management token (one minted with no project) and the read scope. A PROJECT-scoped management token cannot call this: use it on its own project's tools instead.
| 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 mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: the required token scope, the included `accountEmail` detail, and the archived-inclusion behavior. It doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits, but those are minor for a parameterless 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and return fields; the second provides authentication requirements and redirects mis-scoped tokens. No filler or redundant restatement.
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?
For a simple parameterless listing tool, the description covers what it returns, what authentication is required, and what cannot be done. Given no output schema exists, the return-field specification is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meaning to add. It instead clarifies the return payload fields)Skip the `accountEmail` field, which is useful given the absence of an output schema. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 ('List') and resource ('projects on your account'), explicitly notes archived projects are included, and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly differentiates it from related tools like get_project or list_project_tokens.
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?
The description gives explicit prerequisites: ACCOUNT-scoped management token with `read` scopemen. It also states a clear exclusion—PROJECT-scoped tokens cannot call this—and directs to use the project's own tools instead. This is precise when-to-use guidance.
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.
