list_projects
List all projects in the anonymous session
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The anonymous session ID |
try
by md.install
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'List' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only status, failure modes (e.g., invalid session), or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core function. However, it does not mention return format or behavior on invalid sessions, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the 'session_id' parameter, which is adequately described as 'The anonymous session ID'. The tool description merely echoes 'anonymous session' without adding extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all projects' which is a specific verb and resource. It also scopes to 'the anonymous session', distinguishing it from sibling project tools like get_project_details or create_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides some context ('in the anonymous session') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, or state exclusions. It is implied for getting an overview of projects in a session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct, targeting specific resources (projects, data sources, tools) and actions (add, create, delete, update). Slight overlap exists between toggle_tool and update_tool, and between add_data_source and add_tool, but descriptions clarify the differences.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as add_data_source, create_project, delete_tool, and reorder_steps. No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
13 tools is within the ideal range for a project management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in managing projects, data sources, tools, and sessions, without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5
Core CRUD operations are covered for projects and tools, with additional operations like reorder and toggle. Minor gaps exist: data sources lack an update operation, and there's no explicit list/get for tools or data sources, but project details likely cover this.