list_projectsList the projects in an organization that the signed-in user can see, each with its document count, members and the caller's effective role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | Yes | Organization id (uuid). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark the tool as readOnlyHint, so no mutation is implied. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are filtered by the signed-in user's visibility, and the response includes the caller's effective role, which is auth/permission-relevant information not present in the schema.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded verb and resource, and includes only essential qualifiers. No redundant information or filler.
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?
Given the simple input (one UUID), the presence of an output schema, and the readOnly annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, visibility filter, and return highlights. Nothing significant is missing.
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 only parameter, orgId, has a complete description in the schema (type string, format uuid). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter semantics. It doesn't, which is acceptable at the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects in an organization'), and narrows scope with 'that the signed-in user can see.' It also previews returned fields (document count, members, effective role), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_orgs or create_project.
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 clearly identifies the operation context: listing projects within an organization, scoped to what the signed-in user can see. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for the common case and the sibling set makes the right tool obvious.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action: board retrieval is split into JSON vs image with explicit cross-references, and drawing tools are separated from the generic update_board. Look-alikes like list_documents vs list_diagrams and publish_listing vs use_template are differentiated clearly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: create_project, list_documents, update_board, upsert_org_member. A few noun-only names like my_listings, project_file_counts and template_categories break the pattern, so naming is consistent but not uniform.
40 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a single server, even though the domains are clustered into org/project/document/board/template areas. The large surface will make tool selection and onboarding heavier for an agent than necessary.
Core lifecycle coverage for org/project/document/board/template is mostly present, and update_board serves as a flexible escape hatch. However, the board API reads rectangle/diamond/ellipse/free-text drawings and groups/links but only offers explicit create/erase for strokes and arrows; paid template purchase/access is also left unclear.