list_projectsList all projects registered in the local SuperDev agent to see available options.
Return SuperDev projects registered in the local agent.
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so the description's 'Return' is consistent. It adds the scoping detail 'registered in the local agent,' which is useful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like return format, ordering, or pagination.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to meaning ('SuperDev', 'projects', 'local agent').
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?
Low complexity: no parameters, simple list operation, annotation provided. The description tells what is returned and the scope, which is sufficient for a basic list tool. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return fields, but that's not critical given the simplicity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema already confirms no inputs.
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?
Clearly states the tool 'Return SuperDev projects registered in the local agent.' The verb 'Return' and resource 'SuperDev projects' identify its function, and the scope 'local agent' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services and list_hosts.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description: use it when you need to list SuperDev projects. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but it's obvious for a simple zero-parameter list tool, so it doesn't confuse the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.