List projects in your organization. No parameters needed — just call it to see all your projects.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_projects"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | No | Optional organization ID (uses default org if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all projects and requires no parameters, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, any side effects, or the optional org_id parameter's effect, leaving some behavioral details undisclosed.
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 two sentences, directly states purpose first, and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 low-complexity list tool with no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is adequate. It covers the core action and usage, though it could mention the optional org_id or clarify output behavior (e.g., 'returns a list of project summaries') to be more complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents org_id. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, saying no parameters are needed (true for required parameters) but not explaining the optional org_id. Baseline 3 applies since schema handles the parameter documentation.
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' and resource 'projects', with clear scope ('in your organization'). It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_tasks, list_sprints) by explicitly naming projects. The phrase 'see all your projects' reinforces the purpose.
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 says no parameters are needed and instructs the agent to 'just call it'. This provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_project_status or list_project_teams, or any exclusions.
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.