Retrieve a paginated list of projects you own or belong to, including details like name, status, and your role.
Projects the user owns or is a member of: id, name, description, company_name, status (active/archived), my_role, created_at, updated_at, web_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from a previous result's next_cursor, to fetch the next page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — notably it never mentions that results are paginated via cursor, which is the one behavior an agent needs to know here.
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?
It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is not front-loaded: it leads with a field inventory rather than the action, forcing the agent to reconstruct purpose from the name.
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?
With no output schema, enumerating returned fields (id, name, status, my_role, web_url, etc.) is genuinely useful and partially compensates. However, for a paginated list tool the absence of any pagination or result-size guidance leaves a real gap in what an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single cursor parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not reference the cursor or pagination at all, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies with only one optional param.
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 never states a verb — it reads as a colon-delimited field list rather than a statement of what the tool does. The only clue to purpose is the scope phrase 'Projects the user owns or is a member of,' which does meaningfully narrow the resource but leaves the operation implied by the tool name alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among siblings (e.g. find_drawing, recent_activity), and no note about when to page versus stop. The ownership/membership scope is the only contextual hint, which is thin for an agent choosing between list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.