Skip to main content
Glama
PROMPTEYE-SP-Z-O-O

prompteye-mcp

Official
by PROMPTEYE-SP-Z-O-O
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List projects

list_projects
Read-only

Retrieve every project your API key can access, newest first, to identify the brand and market to analyze. Call this before selecting a project for visibility, competitor or prompt data.

Instructions

Every project the API key reaches, newest first, with the access the key has to each. A project is one brand tracked in one market, and it is the root of everything else PromptEye measures. Call this first, then select_project, before asking about visibility, competitors, prompts or sources. Each row includes its label, brand/name and domain; use these fields together to identify a project. Projects with different labels are distinct: do not call them duplicates based only on similar brand names. When unsure which one the user means, ask using the labels and domains shown, and use the project id to select the confirmed one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceIdNoOnly the projects of this workspace, as list_workspaces reports it. A workspace the key does not reach lists nothing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.22
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspaceId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only the projects of this workspace, as list_workspaces reports it. A workspace the key does not reach lists nothing.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "accessRole": {
+            "description": "OWNER manages the project, FULL_ACCESS edits it, READ_ONLY reads it.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "alternativeBrandNames": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "alternativeDomains": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "brand": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "country": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "createdAt": {
+            "description": "When the project was created, ISO 8601 in UTC.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "domain": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "label": {
+            "description": "Grouping label. null = the project has none.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "name",
+          "brand",
+          "domain",
+          "country",
+          "label",
+          "alternativeBrandNames",
+          "alternativeDomains",
+          "accessRole",
+          "createdAt"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.5

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds ordering, per-project access level, root-entity context, and identity pitfalls ('do not call them duplicates based only on similar brand names') beyond readOnly/openWorld annotations. Also gives sequencing and disambiguation behavior. Annotations align; no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads scope and ordering, then usage sequence and disambiguation. It is somewhat long and repeats select_project, but most sentences carry actionable guidance, so minor trim possible.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Output schema exists, so return fields need not be explained; annotations cover safety. Description supplies sequencing, scoping, and identity context needed to call and interpret this list tool correctly. Complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional workspaceId is fully documented there. The description does not add syntax or format details for workspaceId, so it meets the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list projects), scope (every project the API key reaches), ordering (newest first), and access metadata. It defines a project and positions it as root, distinguishing it from select_project and downstream tools. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Call this first, then select_project, before asking about visibility, competitors, prompts or sources,' giving both sequence and alternatives. Adds disambiguation instructions for similar brand names and when to ask the user. No when-not needed.

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