Elenca i progetti SEO visibili al token, con l'ultimo audit (id, stato, data, punteggio). Punto di partenza per ottenere i project_id usati dagli altri strumenti.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it lists projects visible to the token (scoping), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no projects exist. For a simple list, this is a moderate gap.
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 concise sentences in Italian, front-loaded with the core purpose and including the key detail (last audit fields) and a usage hint. No wasted words.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it states what is returned (projects with last audit details) and provides a usage hint. It could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., array of objects) but the implied structure is clear.
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 schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the list contains, which is helpful but not essential since there are no parameters to clarify.
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 ('lists') and resource ('SEO projects visible to the token'), and specifies the content (last audit with id, status, date, score). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_audit_issues or run_audit, which focus on specific actions rather than listing projects.
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?
It explicitly frames itself as the 'starting point' for obtaining project_id used by other tools, giving clear context on when to use it. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple list 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.