Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ForgeGuard MCP

ForgeGuard MCP

by KatoteshiKuka
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

project_list

List all project workspaces registered for the ForgeGuard process, revealing available roots for safe file inspection and modification.

Instructions

List project workspaces registered for this ForgeGuard process.

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": "project_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0-alpha.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, but 'List' clearly conveys a non-mutating enumeration and the qualifier 'registered for this ForgeGuard process' defines the exact scope of the operation. It does not discuss output format or error cases, but for a zero-parameter read-only list tool the core behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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?

The entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes semantic content: action, object, and scope.

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 no-parameter tool, the description covers the necessary context: what is being listed and for which process. It could optionally describe the shape of the returned list, but since no output schema exists and this is a simple enumeration, the description is largely complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. The 100% schema coverage and empty properties object make the schema complete, satisfying the 0-param baseline of 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('project workspaces registered for this ForgeGuard process'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The scope qualifier also distinguishes it from siblings such as project_register (creation) and project_info (single-item detail).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'List project workspaces' suggests this is the tool for enumerating all registered workspaces, while project_info/project_register are likely for single-project detail or registration. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so it offers only indirect routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools