tuskr-mcp-server

List Projects

list_projects

Retrieve projects filtered by name or status (active or archived) to find matching test management projects. Use pagination to browse results in pages of 100.

Instructions

Retrives list of projects based on various filter criteria.

Tool call template

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	controls number of records in output, every page contains 100 records. Default is 1.
`filter_name`	No	to filter projects with name containing the specified value
`filter_status`	No	to filter projects by their status. Two supported values 'active' or 'archived'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 schema fields changedv0.1.5Oct 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / filter_name / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / filter_name / description
```
Added value: +"to filter projects with name containing the specified value"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / filter_name / title
```
Removed value: -"Filter Name"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / filter_name / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / filter_status / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / filter_status / description
```
Added value: +"to filter projects by their status. Two supported values 'active' or 'archived'"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / filter_status / title
```
Removed value: -"Filter Status"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / filter_status / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / page / description
```
Added value: +"controls number of records in output, every page contains 100 records. Default is 1."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / page / title
```
Removed value: -"Page"
```
First observedv0.1.2Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, whether archived projects are included by default, or what the pagination/total behaviour is beyond the schema's '100 records per page' note.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage the description could reasonably stop early, but with zero annotations an agent gets no confirmation of read-only safety, default (unfiltered) behaviour, or pagination expectations. Those gaps matter here.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in detail (page semantics, name-contains matching, active/archived values). The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Retrives list of projects') and scopes it to filter criteria. Siblings are all test-run/test-case/test-suite resources, so the resource noun alone is enough to separate it; the misspelling 'Retrives' is cosmetic.

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?

The phrase 'based on various filter criteria' gestures at filtering but never says when to use this tool versus other listing tools, nor that all filters are optional and unfiltered calls return everything. No prerequisite or exclusion guidance at all.

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

Deploy Server