jira_list_projectsList all accessible Jira projects. Returns project keys, names, descriptions, and types. Use before searching to discover available projects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | List of all accessible Jira projects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns project details, but beyond that does not expand on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits).
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 efficient sentences: first declares action and output, second provides usage guidance. No extraneous words; each sentence earns its place.
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?
With no parameters, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose and usage, leaving no gaps.
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?
No parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so baseline is 4. Description does not add parameter details as none exist, but it does describe output, which is acceptable.
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?
Description clearly states 'List all accessible Jira projects' and specifies returned fields (keys, names, descriptions, types). This distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_project (single project) and jira_search (issues).
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?
Explicitly says 'Use before searching to discover available projects,' providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, missing the highest bar.
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.
Tool purposes are largely distinct across domains (Jira, data queries, prediction markets), but there is overlap within domains, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded and multiple Polymarket edge analysis tools.
Naming mixes multiple conventions: jira_ prefix, pipeworx_ prefix, polymarket_ prefix, and plain verbs (remember, forget, recall). No consistent pattern across the entire set.
34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Jira' which only has 4 Jira-specific tools. The majority are unrelated Pipeworx and Polymarket tools, making the scope bloated.
Jira-specific tools are incomplete (missing create, update, delete). While Pipeworx and Polymarket tools are comprehensive, they are out of place for a Jira server, leaving gaps in its stated purpose.