PlanfixMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project_list

Retrieve a filtered list of projects from Planfix, selecting custom fields, applying complex filters, and controlling pagination to get precise project data.

Instructions

Список проектов

Tool call template

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": "project_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	No	Fields returned - custom field identifiers, system field names, comma-delimited
`offset`	No	Offset from beginning of list
`filters`	No
`pageSize`	No	Size of requested list
`sourceId`	No	Unique identifier of the third-party application or system.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No
`projects`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure, but only states the bare fact of listing projects. It does not mention pagination, default sorting, filter behavior, side effects, or any operational traits, making the tool's behavior nearly opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, constituting under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single noun phrase does not provide adequate structure or information for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complex filter structure and five parameters, the description provides no orienting context. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to convey the tool's overall purpose and capabilities, which it entirely fails to do.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is high (~80%), and the schema itself provides detailed parameter descriptions, including examples. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description 'Список проектов' (List of projects) directly restates the tool name 'project_list' without adding specificity about scope, filtering, or pagination. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource action, failing to distinguish from sibling tools like project_by_id.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_by_id or project_template_list. The description gives no context for use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.