Skip to main content
Glama

projects

List registered aliases and their roots to find the right project value when the server runs outside the target codebase; pass that value to every tool.

Instructions

Registered project aliases and their roots (for the project parameter). Call it when the server's working directory is not the project (e.g. Claude Desktop), then pass project to every tool.

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": "projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.3

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned content (aliases and roots) and the workflow consequence (pass `project` onward), which is meaningful context. It does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, or what happens when no projects are registered.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first declares what is returned, the second declares the trigger and the follow-up. The content is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only registry lookup with no output schema, the description covers content, trigger, and downstream usage. The only gaps are the empty-registry case and an explicit statement that the call is safe/read-only.

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?

There are zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The description adds cross-tool value by explaining that the returned values feed the `project` parameter of every other tool, giving the agent the vocabulary needed to use sibling tools correctly.

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 names the resource precisely — registered project aliases and their roots — and ties it to the `project` parameter, so an agent knows what it yields. The verb is only implied ("Registered ... are") rather than stated as a list/lookup action, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `project_profile`.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete trigger condition: call it when the server's working directory is not the project, with Claude Desktop named as an example. It also states the follow-up action (pass `project` to every tool). It stops short of saying when this call is unnecessary or what to do if the working directory is already the project.

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