Lists all currently open projects in the Altium workspace, returning each project's name, path, document count, and total count for quick workspace inventory.
List all currently open projects in the Altium workspace.
Returns: Dictionary with "projects" array (each: project_name, project_path, document_count) and "count"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return structure and implies a read-only listing operation, but does not explicitly state that it is side-effect free or describe any permission or workspace constraints.
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?
The description is two tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The return-value note is brief and does not bloat the definition.
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?
For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what is listed and gives the output shape. It could do slightly more to differentiate from sibling listing tools, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 tool takes no parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the baseline for zero parameters is a 4.
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 and resource: list currently open projects in the Altium workspace. The scope is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like proj_list_documents or proj_get_focused.
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 to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The scope 'currently open projects' implies basic usage, but the description stops short of actual usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.