list_environmentsLists a project's environments with base URL and auth type, masking secrets, so you can inspect configuration without exposing credentials.
Read-only. Lists a project’s environments (base URL, auth type). Secrets are masked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project ref (e.g. payments-kqzxm) or numeric id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the leading "Read-only" adds nothing new. However, "Secrets are masked" is genuine behavioral context about the response that annotations do not convey, warning the agent that credential values will not be exposed.
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?
Three compact clauses with no filler, and the safety/scope constraint is front-loaded. Every clause contributes distinct information: read-only, the resource and its returned fields, and the masking behavior.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the returned fields (base URL, auth type) and the masking behavior. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or error behavior when the project ref is invalid, leaving a small gap for a listing tool.
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 single parameter is fully documented as a project ref or numeric id, so the schema carries the weight. The description only implies the parameter's role ("a project's environments") without adding format or constraint detail, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
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 (Lists) and resource (a project's environments), and even names the fields returned (base URL, auth type). The resource is naturally distinct from siblings like list_projects or list_runs, but the description never explicitly contrasts with an alternative tool, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 is implied: the tool scopes to "a project's environments" and requires a project ref, so an agent can infer it is the lookup for environments of a known project. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so this is minimum-viable rather than strong guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.