list_projectsList the projects that organize a client's work (e.g. Website, Google Ads, Newsletter, Reporting). Every task belongs to exactly one project, so call this before create_task and ask the human which project the work belongs to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | No | Name or @handle of the client. Fuzzy-resolved. | |
| client_id | No | ||
| include_archived | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the domain invariant that every task belongs to exactly one project and the prerequisite role, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or archived-project behavior. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence provides examples of project names, and the second explains the domain rule and the call-time instruction. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only list tool, the description plus annotations cover the main use case: call before create_task. However, the include_archived parameter is unexplained, there is no output schema, and the description doesn't mention what fields are returned, leaving a moderate gap.
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?
Only client has a schema description (fuzzy-resolved); client_id and include_archived are effectively undocumented, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With schema coverage at 33%, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving an agent unsure what include_archived controls.
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 the verb 'List', the resource 'projects', and the scope 'for a client', with concrete examples like Website and Google Ads. It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling list tools such as list_my_tasks or search_tasks.
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 an explicit usage rule: every task belongs to exactly one project, so call this before create_task and ask the human which project the work belongs to. This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.
At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.
The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.