Fetch all Stitch projects so you can choose one to edit or scaffold HTML UIs.
List all available Stitch projects
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_projects"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List all available' conveys a read-only behavior and a scope limitation ('available'), but it does not disclose potential auth requirements, response format, pagination, or error behavior. For a list tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the exact purpose without any redundant words or filler. It is both concise and complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's function. It does not describe the return structure, but 'List' strongly implies returning an array of project objects, which is acceptable for this context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds slight semantic value by specifying 'all available', which clarifies that no filtering is applied and only accessible projects are returned.
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 action ('List') and the resource ('all available Stitch projects'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_project and edit_screen by indicating a read-only enumeration operation.
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 implies usage—call this to retrieve all Stitch projects—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or mention any preconditions. Since it is a simple list operation, the implied usage is acceptable but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.