list_projectsList the projects registered by this BotKelp account. Requires a BotKelp account key — never returns another account's projects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| botKelpKey | Yes | BotKelp account key (starts with "bk_live_"). Required. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does usefully disclose that an account key is required and that the tool never returns another account's projects. It does not go into response shape or invalid-key behavior, but it provides the key behavioral constraints for a simple 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 short sentences deliver the core action, the auth requirement, and the account-scoping guarantee with no filler. The most important facts are front-loaded.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it and what to pass. It could mention the return shape more explicitly, but 'List the projects' plus the account-scope caveat is adequate.
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 input schema already fully documents botKelpKey, including its 'bk_live_' prefix and that it is required, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action and resource — 'List the projects registered by this BotKelp account' — and clearly scopes it to the authenticated account, which separates it from sibling tools like create_project and get_scaffold_template. The added privacy boundary reinforces what the tool does rather than merely echoing the title.
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 makes the intended context clear: use it to retrieve only the current account's projects, and it requires a BotKelp account key. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the read-versus-create contrast with siblings is implicit.
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 clearly distinct actions: search/check are read-only registry operations, generate/get/buy are different scaffold delivery modes, and create/list/apply/verify handle project lifecycle. The main ambiguity is between get_scaffold_template and buy_scaffold_template, which share the same repo-handoff behavior and differ only in payment/account requirements; the descriptions are detailed enough to tell them apart, but an agent could still pick the wrong one without reading carefully.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_components, create_project, generate_scaffold, verify_scaffold, apply_changes_to_repo, and so on. The verbs are specific and the nouns map cleanly to the resources being acted on, making the toolset predictable.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a scaffolding and component-registry service. Each tool covers a meaningful part of the workflow—discovery, generation, delivery, verification, project registration, and repository updates—without redundancy or excessive granularity.
The core domain is well covered: component discovery, update checking, scaffold generation in three delivery modes, build verification, project registration, and applying changes to a repo. Minor gaps exist—there is no project deletion/unregistration, no way to fetch a single project's details beyond list_projects, and no direct update action after check_component_updates reports newer versions—but agents can work around these without major dead ends.