List projects in the configured Sentry organization and use the returned cursor to fetch subsequent pages.
List projects in the configured Sentry organization (essential fields only). When more projects exist, the result carries a next_cursor; pass it as cursor to get the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Optional: pagination cursor (next_cursor from a previous call). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: pagination cursor (next_cursor from a previous call).",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: it discloses that the result may carry next_cursor and how to consume it, and that returned project objects are trimmed to 'essential fields only'.
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, the resource and scope are front-loaded, and the pagination instruction follows immediately. No filler or restated boilerplate.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully covers the one return detail that matters for correct invocation: the next_cursor pagination token. It is complete enough for a single-optional-param read tool, though it says nothing about ordering, filters, or what happens when no projects exist.
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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents cursor as 'next_cursor from a previous call', which the description essentially repeats. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds the loop-level framing but no meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('List projects in the configured Sentry organization') and adds a scoping qualifier ('essential fields only'). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like list_teams or list_releases, though no sibling is named 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?
Usage context is implied (call it when you need the organization's project list), and it does explain the pagination loop for the cursor. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no stated conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.