jira_get_all_projectsList all Jira projects accessible to the current user and optionally include archived projects for project discovery and access checks.
Get all Jira projects accessible to the current user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_archived | No | Whether to include archived projects in the results |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are scoped to the calling user's permissions — but says nothing about volume, pagination, or ordering, which matters for an open-world list endpoint.
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?
One short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a tool that has a near-duplicate sibling.
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 and annotations cover safety, so the bar is lower, but for a top-level enumeration tool the description never addresses result size, pagination, or the relationship to jira_search_projects. Adequate but with a clear routing 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single include_archived parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it. No additional semantics (default project set, ordering) are added, so this sits at the baseline.
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 ("Get all Jira projects") plus a scope qualifier ("accessible to the current user"), so the operation is unambiguous. However, the sibling jira_search_projects covers a very similar surface and the description makes no attempt to distinguish the two.
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?
There is no guidance on when this should be used instead of jira_search_projects, nor any prerequisite or exclusion noted. The agent must infer the split (enumerate everything vs. filtered search) from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.