@scom82/topvisor-mcp

topvisor_list_projects

List all Topvisor projects with customizable fields, filters, and orders. Optionally show configured search engines and regions for precise queries.

Instructions

List all projects in the account. Use fields, filters, orders for precise queries. show_searchers_and_regions=1 includes configured search engines and regions.

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": "topvisor_list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	No	Fields to return
`filters`	No
`orders`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`show_site_stat`	No
`show_searchers_and_regions`	No	0=none, 1=searchers+regions, 2=full details

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or default behavior (e.g., pagination, default limit/offset). Only the effect of 'show_searchers_and_regions=1' is noted.

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 two sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 the lack of output schema and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return format, pagination behavior (limit/offset), error handling, or how to interpret results. Basic completeness is achieved for listing but not for advanced usage.

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 low (29%), but the description adds value by mentioning fields, filters, orders for precise queries and a specific example for show_searchers_and_regions. However, it does not explain syntax or behavior for all 7 parameters sufficiently.

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 'List all projects in the account' which specifies the action (list) and resource (projects) with scope (all). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like add, balance, or other list tools.

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 advises to 'Use fields, filters, orders for precise queries', which gives some guidance on how to refine results, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., topvisor_get_summary) or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server