Retrieves all projects with memory counts, identities, and checkout details, marking the current project and clone so you can inspect local memory context.
READ. All projects with memory counts, identities and checkouts (path, branch, head, label); marks the current project and clone. No preconditions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so: it declares read-only semantics ('READ'), states there are no preconditions, and discloses notable side-behaviors of the output (marking the current project and clone). It doesn't mention cost, limits, or ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the READ qualifier, then a compact inventory of returned fields; every clause carries information. The parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place by describing the response shape.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully specified, and the description still summarizes them plus safety and precondition state. A zero-param read tool is adequately covered; only the absence of any comparison to sibling listing tools is a gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a full unfiltered listing with no inputs.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('All projects') and enumerates the payload (memory counts, identities, checkouts with path/branch/head/label, current project and clone marks). An agent can tell this is the project-enumeration tool versus memory-oriented siblings like search_memories or list_recent, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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?
'READ' plus 'No preconditions' signals it is always safe to call and requires no setup. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_recent or investigation_status, so the routing decision is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.