List all projects linked to your account to review, track, and manage your sales initiatives and campaigns.
List all projects for the current user.
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.
v0.7.54Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, pagination, or whether the list includes all project details or just summaries. It is not misleading but lacks additional context.
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 that states the action and scope with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and to the point, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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 simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but does not specify the return format, whether archived projects are included, or any ordering/filtering. It is minimally adequate but lacks completeness given that the agent has no other clues about the output structure.
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?
With zero parameters, the description needs to explain no parameter semantics. It does mention the implicit scope 'current user' which defines the context of the operation. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate given the description adds the only relevant semantic detail (user scope).
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 all projects for the current user' clearly identifies the action (list), resource (projects), and scope (current user). It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_project or setup_project, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies when to use it (when you need a list of projects), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives from the sibling set. There is no guidance on how it differs from other list tools like list_documents or list_organizations, so the usage context is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.