Retrieve ORACC public projects filtered by name substring, with a configurable limit for efficient discovery.
List ORACC public projects, optionally filtered by name substring.
Args: query: Optional case-insensitive substring filter. limit: Max projects to return (default 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It reveals the tool is a read-only public listing via 'List' and 'public', and it documents filtering and limit behavior. However, it does not address pagination, sort order, empty results, or error behavior; these are minor but unaddressed.
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?
Two short sentences plus an Args block – every word adds information. It front-loads the core action and keeps parameter details compact.
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?
Given the simple parameter set and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what, filter, and limit. It omits explicit caveats about pagination or result size, but for a basic list tool this is close to complete.
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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'query' is a case-insensitive substring filter and 'limit' caps the result count with a default of 50. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema types.
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 opens with 'List ORACC public projects' – a clear verb + resource. It specifies the public scope and the optional name-substring filter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve metadata, manifests, texts, or search.
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?
No when-to-use or alternative guidance appears anywhere in the description. It does not mention search_project or other siblings, leaving the agent to infer when listing is preferable to searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.