Retrieve explicitly registered projects with stable IDs, roots, and skill versions without scanning disk. Filter by query and paginate results by limit and offset.
List explicitly registered projects, stable IDs, roots and skill versions. No disk scanning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns stable IDs, roots, and skill versions, and explicitly does not scan disk, which tells the agent this is a cheap registry read rather than a discovery operation.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by ruling out disk scanning.
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 need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, the lack of any parameter semantics or explicit usage guidance relative to siblings leaves significant gaps for a tool with three undocumented input parameters.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the three parameters (limit, query, offset), and the description does not mention any of them or explain their semantics. The fields named in the description are outputs, not inputs, so there is no added meaning for the parameters an agent must supply.
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 ('List') and resource ('explicitly registered projects') and enumerates the primary returned fields (stable IDs, roots, skill versions). The phrase 'No disk scanning' distinguishes it from refresh_projects and makes the scope clear without needing to open the schema.
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?
It implies a usage context by clarifying that this lists explicitly registered projects without touching disk, suggesting it is the lightweight inspection choice. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to refresh_projects or project_overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.