list_project_filesList a project's uploaded files (metadata + public URLs), most recent first. Inspection only — files are not streamed through MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max files to return (1-1000, default 100) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0) | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (UUID) | |
| environment | No | Environment: staging or production (default: production) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: 'files are not streamed through MCP' and the response contains metadata plus public URLs, not file contents. This prevents an agent from expecting binary data streams.
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 filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a single high-value behavioral note about file streaming.
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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description supplies the essential missing context: return type (metadata + public URLs), ordering, and the non-streaming behavior. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is absent.
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%, so the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds useful output-ordering context but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 specific action ('List'), the resource ('a project's uploaded files'), and the output scope ('metadata + public URLs'). It also specifies ordering ('most recent first'), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_projects and list_graph_nodes.
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 clear this tool is for uploaded project files and positions it as an inspection operation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the resource scope is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it over sibling listing tools.
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 are clearly differentiated by domain (project vs graph_project) and action (create, get, list, delete). The main ambiguity is get_project vs get_project_info, which both claim to return detailed project information. Otherwise tool boundaries are clear.
The server follows a strong verb_noun convention, with parallel naming for graph and non-graph tools (create_project/create_graph_project, deploy_staging/deploy_graph_staging). Minor deviations include bulk_create_graph_nodes and fulltext_search_graph, but patterns remain predictable.
48 tools is a heavy surface, even when accounting for the two parallel product domains (relational and graph). Many tools are near-duplicates across domains, and the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold that feels manageable. It would benefit from consolidation or sub-servers.
Both project types have full life-cycle coverage: create, schema management, deployment, rollback, and deletion, plus graph data operations including bulk, search, and traversal. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_graph_relationship and the redundant get_project/get_project_info pair, but agents can accomplish core workflows.