List work items in a project.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"project_id": "<project_id>"
},
"name": "list_work_items"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as pagination, result limits, ordering, or what happens with an invalid project ID.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted wording and is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is structurally efficient, though its brevity contributes to gaps in usage and behavior guidance.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter and annotations covering its safety profile. However, the description does not clarify return behavior or sibling differentiation, which leaves it minimally adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 100%, and project_id is already documented as 'Project ID.' The description adds no syntax, format, or scope detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score for high coverage is appropriate.
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 and resource: listing work items. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as get_work_item or list_work_item_templates.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_work_item for a single item. There are also no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or filtering conditions.
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.