Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIR MCP Server

AIR MCP Server

by VericyIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List saved project choices

air_list_project_decisions
Read-only

List a project’s saved decisions and compare each against a specified assessment to identify choices that stand, conflict, or are settled.

Instructions

List saved choices for a project, each judged against assessmentPid. posture: stands (quiet; the topic is raised on the same documents and seriousness the person decided on), conflicts (show the saved sentence and ask again; cameBackBecause says why: new_evidence = the scan cites text that was not in the documents they decided on, more_serious = the topic moved up, for example from the watchlist to a risk, review_due = six months have passed), settled (the accepted gap is no longer open). Requires projects:read.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectPid": "<projectPid>",
      "assessmentPid": "<assessmentPid>"
    },
    "name": "air_list_project_decisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPidYes
assessmentPidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: an explicit permission requirement ('Requires projects:read') and a full semantics map of the returned posture values and cameBackBecause reasons, which is not covered by any 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the rest is a single dense run-on built from nested parentheticals covering four different concepts. Every sentence earns its place in substance, but the heavy inline nesting makes it slow to parse for an agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly via the posture/cameBackBecause taxonomy, plus the permission scope. What is missing is secondary: pagination/result limits and how the two PIDs are obtained. Adequate for a low-complexity two-parameter read.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It names assessmentPid and explains its role ('judged against'), and 'for a project' implies projectPid, but neither is defined (format, where to obtain the PID), and projectPid is never mentioned by name. It partially compensates for the coverage gap rather than fully closing it.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'List saved choices for a project', with the crucial qualifier that each choice is 'judged against assessmentPid'. That is a clear, non-tautological purpose. It does not name or disambiguate against the sibling air_record_project_decision, which is the nearest alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement. The description does give operational guidance inside the posture explanation ('conflicts ... show the saved sentence and ask again'), which tells the agent what to do with results, but it never states when to call this tool versus air_record_project_decision or any other sibling, nor any prerequisites beyond the scope.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools