Skip to main content
Glama

github_projects_list_fields_for_user

Lists the fields of a GitHub project for a given user and project number.

Instructions

List project fields for user

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYesusername
project_numberYesproject_number
per_pageNoThe number of results per page (max 100). For more information, see "[Using pagination in the REST API](https://docs.github.com/rest/using-the-rest-api/using-pagination-in-the-rest-api)."
beforeNoA cursor, as given in the [Link header](https://docs.github.com/rest/guides/using-pagination-in-the-rest-api#using-link-headers). If specified, the query only searches for results before this cursor. For more information, see "[Using pagination in the REST API](https://docs.github.com/rest/using-the-rest-api/using-pagination-in-the-rest-api)."
afterNoA cursor, as given in the [Link header](https://docs.github.com/rest/guides/using-pagination-in-the-rest-api#using-link-headers). If specified, the query only searches for results after this cursor. For more information, see "[Using pagination in the REST API](https://docs.github.com/rest/using-the-rest-api/using-pagination-in-the-rest-api)."
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, the structure of the returned fields, or any pagination behavior (though pagination parameters are in the schema). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise at four words, which is efficient for communication. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or separate sections that could help quickly parse key points. It is minimal but not wasteful.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'project fields' are, the expected output format, and any constraints (e.g., page limits). The current description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already provides clear meaning for each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'List' and the resource 'project fields for user', making the action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_projects_list_fields_for_org', which lists fields for an organization instead of a user. The name itself provides differentiation, but the description could explicitly clarify the scope.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_projects_get_field_for_user' or 'github_projects_list_fields_for_org'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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/Eyalm321/github-mcp'

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