list_modulesRetrieve a paginated list of modules for a given project ID. Use this to view all modules within a Plane project.
List a project's modules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response's `next_cursor`. | |
| per_page | No | Items per page (1-100, default 20). | |
| project_id | Yes | Project UUID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Pagination cursor from a previous response's `next_cursor`."Input schema / properties / per_page / descriptionAdded value: +"Items per page (1-100, default 20)."Input schema / properties / project_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Project UUID."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without revealing that it is a read-only operation, that it supports pagination (cursor, per_page), or any other behavior. While the schema hints at pagination, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action.
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 sentence and is concise, but it essentially restates the tool's name and adds no new information. It is not front-loaded with any important caveats or alternatives. While it is not verbose, it fails to earn its place by providing value beyond the title.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema and the parameters are fully described, the missing piece is usage context. The description does not mention when to use this tool, whether it is read-only, or any special considerations. For a simple list operation, it is inadequate because it lacks guidance on selecting it over siblings and does not disclose pagination behavior beyond schema defaults.
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%, with clear descriptions for project_id, cursor, and per_page. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline is 3 given the schema already covers all parameters. It does not enhance or clarify beyond what the schema provides.
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 'List a project's modules' clearly states the verb and resource, and indicates scope via 'a project's'. It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_pages, list_work_items, or list_states, which are similarly named and scoped. It meets the bar for clear purpose but lacks sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer list_modules over other list tools, no exclusions, and no context about typical use cases. The agent is left to infer the purpose from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.