asana_list_projectsList all projects in a workspace. Returns project ID, name, and archived status. Requires workspace ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of projects to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| workspace | No | Workspace GID (auto-resolved if omitted) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projects | Yes | List of projects in workspace |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read only (readOnlyHint=true), non-destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description adds that workspace ID is required and lists returned fields, but does not significantly expand on behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
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 wasted words. The first sentence immediately conveys the core function. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool's simplicity, excellent annotations, presence of output schema, and full parameter schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return values, and a key requirement.
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 coverage is 100% and baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by clarifying the necessity of workspace ID (though optional in schema) and stating the output fields, which are not detailed in the input schema.
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 clearly states the tool lists all projects in a workspace and returns specific fields (ID, name, archived status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_list_tasks (tasks) and asana_list_workspaces (workspaces).
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 mentions requirement of workspace ID but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Since no other project-listing sibling exists, usage is implied but lacks explicit when-not or alternative references.
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.
The tool set mixes Asana project management tools with a large number of Pipeworx data retrieval tools. Within the Pipeworx subset, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping purposes, and multiple prediction market tools exist (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). This creates ambiguity and potential for misselection.
Tool names lack a consistent pattern. Some use 'asana_' prefix, others use descriptive phrases (e.g., 'compare_entities', 'generate_llms_txt'), and some are single verbs (e.g., 'forget', 'remember'). Mix of different conventions leads to unpredictability.
37 tools is high for a server named 'Asana', yet only 6 tools are Asana-specific. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to Asana. This overloading makes the server feel bloated and off-purpose.
For Asana functionality, the set is incomplete: missing update/delete task, project management features, etc. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, leaving the Asana workflow with notable gaps.