Retrieve every module assigned to a project using its UUID. Use this to inspect project organization and work item grouping.
Get all modules for a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project to get modules for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but reveals nothing about permissions required, pagination behavior, error conditions, rate limits, or response format. For a read operation in a system with many mutation tools, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information ('Get all modules for a specific project').
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what 'modules' are in this context, what data they contain, whether the list is filtered/paginated, or what authentication/authorization is required. Given the rich sibling toolset with many mutation operations, more context is needed.
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% with the single parameter 'project_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid project_id or how modules relate to projects). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get all modules') and target resource ('for a specific project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_module' (singular) or 'list_module_issues', missing explicit differentiation that would warrant a score of 5.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_module' (singular retrieval) or 'list_module_issues' (related but different resource). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.