Fetches all projects in a Buildup workspace, enabling AI assistants to select, review, or manage voxel model projects.
List the projects of the workspace.
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": "list_projects"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the workspace-scoping phrase and says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size, so it contributes little beyond the annotations.
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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy, front-loading the action and resource. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 zero-parameter list tool the core intent is covered, but with no output schema present the description gives no hint of return shape, ordering, or whether results are paginated. Minimum viable rather than 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level information is missing.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (projects) with a scope qualifier (of the workspace), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling project_summary or explain how the two differ.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' – an agent can infer this is the browse-enumeration call, but the description names no alternative (e.g. project_summary) and states no conditions for choosing between them. Adequate for a trivial read-only listing, but no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.