List the authenticated user's projects (L2 intent layer), or fetch one by id. Each entry includes riskiest_assumption — the single highest-priority unverified assumption (or, if all are verified, the highest-criticality one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Fetch a single project by UUID. Omit to list all. | |
| status | No | Filter by status. Omit to list all statuses. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it notes the 'L2 intent layer' and explains the 'riskiest_assumption' field's semantics (highest-priority unverified assumption). This helps the agent understand what data to expect, complementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every part adds value. The clarification about 'riskiest_assumption' is useful without being verbose.
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 read-only list/fetch tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what the response includes. It could mention pagination or ordering, but given the simplicity and the annotations, it's reasonably complete.
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 documentation covers both parameters (id and status) 100%, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does implicitly mention 'by id' but not the status filter; however, since the schema is complete, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing the authenticated user's projects or fetching one by ID. It specifies the resource (projects) and the operations (list/fetch), and the 'L2 intent layer' qualifier helps distinguish it from other project-related tools.
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 gives clear context for use: it targets the authenticated user's projects and supports either listing all or fetching by ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only nature and resource focus make the intended usage apparent.
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 clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.
Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).
35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.
Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.