Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openproject-local-mcp

openproject-local-mcp

by NobuoTsukamoto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List OpenProject Projects

list_projects

List all OpenProject projects visible to your user, with filtering, sorting, and pagination options to narrow down results.

Instructions

List projects visible to the configured OpenProject API user.

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": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNo
sort_byNo
page_sizeNo
custom_filtersNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the visibility scope but omits details about pagination, filtering, return format, or side effects, which are important for a list operation.

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 description is a single sentence of ten words, highly front-loaded with 'List projects'. It is concise without unnecessary words and earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four underexplained parameters, this description leaves a substantial information gap. It lacks any mention of filtering, sorting, pagination, or expected response structure, making it inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter meanings. The four parameters (offset, sort_by, page_size, custom_filters) are completely unexplained, so the description adds no value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('projects'), with a specific scope ('visible to the configured OpenProject API user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on work packages.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The description simply states the function without usage context, scoring low on this dimension.

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