Reel Estate MCP

Official

by TryReelEstate

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

List projects

list_projects

List authenticated user's projects with paging, status filtering, search, sorting, and folder or star selection.

Instructions

GET /projects for the authenticated user. Supports paging, sorting, search, and status filter.

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": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`search`	No
`sortBy`	No	e.g. updatedAt, createdAt, name, lastInteractedAt
`status`	No
`starred`	No
`folderId`	No
`sortOrder`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.4Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions it's a GET endpoint (read-only), but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like rate limits, data volume, or pagination limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the HTTP method and core purpose. No unnecessary words, and it efficiently conveys the tool's scope.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return structure, pagination behavior, or how to combine filters, which an agent might need to use the tool effectively.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description lists parameter categories (paging, sorting, search, status) but does not explain individual parameter meanings, formats, or constraints beyond what is in the schema. Many parameters lack descriptions in the schema, so the description should compensate more.

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 projects for the authenticated user with specific capabilities: paging, sorting, search, and status filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (single project) or list_clips (clips).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implicitly contrasts with get_project and other list tools by specifying features. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when needing a filtered list vs all projects).

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