Get projects list; filter by category ID or keyword to find specific items, or omit filters to return all projects.
获取项目列表。可选按分类ID、名称关键词筛选，不传则返回所有项目。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | No | 按项目名称或描述关键词模糊搜索 | |
| category_id | No | 按分类ID筛选 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior of returning all projects when no filters are passed, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, result ordering, or read-only nature beyond the verb '获取', leaving some behavioral context unspecified.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('获取项目列表') and then covers filter options and default behavior without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.
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 list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the core invocation details: what it does, the available filters, and fallback behavior when filters are omitted. It could additionally explain response format or pagination, but the tool is simple enough that the current description is largely sufficient.
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%, with both 'keyword' and 'category_id' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: '获取项目列表' (get project list), with optional filters by category ID and name keyword. This clearly distinguishes it from project_create and project_delete, and from sibling list tools like task_list and category_list.
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 provides clear context: the tool lists projects and optionally filters them, with no filter returning all projects. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.