Retrieve all fields, single-select and multi-select options, and iterations configured on an authorized GitHub Project v2 by specifying the owner and project number.
List fields, single-select options, multi-select options, and iterations configured on an authorized GitHub Project v2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the 'authorized' access requirement and enumerating what the read exposes (options and iterations, not just fields), but says nothing about pagination, limits, or failure behavior.
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?
A single dense sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it spends words enumerating field types where a short clause on parameters would have paid off more.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description only partially compensates by listing the categories of configuration returned. It omits the two required parameters and any notion of return shape or ordering, leaving gaps for a tool whose whole job is to reveal project configuration.
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 0% and both parameters (owner, number) are required, yet the description never mentions them. It leaves unresolved whether 'owner' is a user or organization login and what 'number' refers to (project number vs. node id), which are the exact ambiguities that block a correct call.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus a precisely enumerated resource (fields, single-select options, multi-select options, iterations) scoped to a GitHub Project v2. An agent can distinguish this from list_github_projects (projects) and list_github_project_items (items) without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites beyond the vague phrase 'authorized GitHub Project v2', and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that this is a discovery/configuration-read step rather than an item-listing or mutation step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.