openproject-mcp

List projects

op_list_projects

Lists OpenProject projects visible to your API key. Supports filtering by fields like active status or name, sorting, and pagination.

Instructions

List OpenProject projects visible to the API key. Supports OpenProject filter syntax. Common fields: "active" ("=" true/false), "name_and_identifier" ("~" substring), "parent_id" ("=" id).

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": "op_list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filters`	No
`sortBy`	No	e.g. [["name", "asc"]]
`offset`	No	Page number (1-based)
`pageSize`	No
`raw`	No	Return full HAL response instead of summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions visibility based on API key and filter support, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default response format, rate limits, or performance implications. Some transparency but significant gaps remain.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second introduces filter support, third gives concrete examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and filter syntax but lacks details on pagination, sorting, default response format, and error handling. It is adequate for simple use but incomplete for understanding all behaviors.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 60% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the filter syntax and giving common field examples (e.g., 'active', 'name_and_identifier'), which the schema does not provide. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like sortBy or raw beyond what is in the 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 tool lists OpenProject projects visible to the API key, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like op_get_project, op_create_project, etc., by focusing on listing.

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?

The description mentions support for filter syntax and gives common field examples, implying usage for filtered listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., op_get_project for a single project) or any prerequisites.

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