List the MCP tools your project publishes to customers, derived from its SDK config, optionally for a specific project ID.
The MCP tool catalogue this project publishes to its own customers, derived from its SDK config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Project id. Optional, falls back to the CLI's selected project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only provenance (the catalogue is derived from the SDK config). It says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, auth requirements, or what the response contains.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, conveying the resource and its origin up front. It is well sized for a one-parameter read tool.
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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema this is minimally adequate, but neither the return shape nor any usage context is described, leaving modest gaps.
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 optional project_id already documents its fallback-to-selected-project behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter.
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 names a specific resource — the MCP tool catalogue published to the project's customers — which cleanly separates it from the other list_* siblings such as octri_list_specs, octri_list_operations and octri_list_languages. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so the action (retrieve/list) is only implied.
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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus its many list_* siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.