Skip to main content
Glama

list_projects

Retrieve all available Penpot projects to access design files for analysis and automated workflows.

Instructions

Retrieve a list of all available Penpot projects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for list_projects. Registers the tool and implements the logic by delegating to PenpotAPI.list_projects(), with error handling.
    @self.mcp.tool()
    def list_projects() -> dict:
        """Retrieve a list of all available Penpot projects."""
        try:
            projects = self.api.list_projects()
            return {"projects": projects}
        except Exception as e:
            return self._handle_api_error(e)
  • Core implementation of listing Penpot projects via authenticated API call to the Penpot RPC endpoint, with debug logging and response normalization.
    def list_projects(self) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        List all available projects for the authenticated user.
    
        Returns:
            Dictionary containing project information
        """
        url = f"{self.base_url}/rpc/command/get-all-projects"
    
        payload = {}  # No parameters required
    
        response = self._make_authenticated_request('post', url, json=payload, use_transit=False)
    
        if self.debug:
            content_type = response.headers.get('Content-Type', '')
            print(f"\nResponse content type: {content_type}")
            print(f"Response preview: {response.text[:100]}...")
    
        # Parse JSON
        data = response.json()
    
        if self.debug:
            print("\nData preview:")
            print(json.dumps(data, indent=2)[:200] + "...")
    
        return data
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieve a list') but does not cover critical traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all available' entails (e.g., permissions, archived projects). This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a list retrieval tool, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, aligning with the schema's completeness, but could have mentioned implicit constraints like authentication or scope.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of all available Penpot projects'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_files' or 'search_object', which might also involve project retrieval, so it misses full sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_project_files' or 'search_object'. The description implies a broad retrieval but lacks context on use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/montevive/penpot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server