List company projects in Time Doctor, optionally filtering by name, pagination, and scope to return assigned or all projects.
List Time Doctor projects in a company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Return all company projects instead of only ones assigned to the caller. | |
| name | No | Filter: name starts with this value. | |
| page | No | Number of results to skip. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. | |
| company | Yes | Company ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering nuances, or whether only assigned projects are returned by default (which the 'all' parameter hints at but the description does not explain).
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. However, it is so brief that it may be under-specified, though it avoids verbosity.
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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination details, or when the 'all' flag is needed. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from the description alone.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage, but it does not clarify usage relationships among parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (Time Doctor projects) and includes context ('in a company'). It distinguishes from get_project by the verb, but does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast behavior.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like timedoctor_get_project. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.