list_projectsDiscover OpenToonz project descriptors in the workspace to locate project folders, with read-only results and parser warnings for inspection.
Discover OpenToonz project descriptors inside the workspace. Results are read-only and include project folders and parser warnings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully says results are read-only and mentions that results include project folders and parser warnings, but it does not explain ordering, pagination, limit behavior, or error cases.
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 two compact sentences with no wasted language, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the result-content note.
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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, read-only behavior, and partial return contents. However, it leaves the limit parameter and the exact result shape under-specified.
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?
The single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The schema provides type and bounds, but the description adds no meaning about how the limit affects listing behavior.
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 states a specific verb and resource: discovering OpenToonz project descriptors inside the workspace. It is clear what the tool does and implicitly contrasts with sibling inspection tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as inspect_project.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to sibling tools like inspect_project or list_scenes. Workspace scoping is stated, but that is context rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.