Skip to main content
Glama
TykanN

Swit MCP Server

by TykanN

swit-project-list

Retrieve a list of projects from Swit workspaces to manage and organize collaborative tasks, using workspace ID and optional filters for activity, disclosure, or name.

Instructions

Retrieve list of projects

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspace_idYes
offsetNo
limitNo
activityNo
disclosureNo
nameNo

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'swit-project-list' tool. It parses the input arguments using ProjectListArgsSchema and delegates to the SwitClient's listProjects method.
    export const handleProjectList = async (switClient: SwitClient, args: any) => {
      const validatedArgs = ProjectListArgsSchema.parse(args);
      return await switClient.listProjects(validatedArgs);
    };
  • Zod schema defining the input arguments for the project list tool, including workspace_id and pagination options.
    export const ProjectListArgsSchema = z.object({
      workspace_id: z.string(),
      offset: z.string().optional(),
      limit: z.number().min(1).max(100).optional(),
      activity: z.string().optional(),
      disclosure: z.string().optional(),
      name: z.string().optional(),
    });
  • Tool metadata registration in coreTools array, used by the MCP server to list available tools.
    {
      name: 'swit-project-list',
      description: 'Retrieve list of projects',
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(ProjectListArgsSchema),
    },
  • Handler function mapping for 'swit-project-list' tool within the coreHandlers object returned by the factory function.
    'swit-project-list': (args: any) => handleProjectList(switClient, args),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieve,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), error handling, or what the returned list includes. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language, making it efficient in terms of brevity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to effectively use the tool. The conciseness undermines completeness in this context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It only mentions 'projects' generically, without explaining parameters like workspace_id (required), offset, limit, activity, disclosure, or name. This fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Retrieve list of projects' clearly states the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('projects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'swit-workspace-list' or specify what kind of projects are being retrieved (e.g., from a specific workspace or all projects). This makes it adequate but vague in differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'swit-workspace-list' for listing workspaces instead of projects. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TykanN/swit-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server