projectsList project registry entries with name, path, and last-opened time to identify available project directories.
List the project registry, one line per project: name, path and last-opened time. Entries are created and refreshed automatically as grove commands run inside a project; this server is bound to a single root at startup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: entries are created/refreshed automatically by grove commands, and the server is scoped to a single root at startup. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core operation and output format are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant lifecycle context without unnecessary detail.
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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (one line per project with name, path, last-opened time) and explains how entries get populated. Minor details like ordering are unspecified, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool 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?
The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters requiring documentation. The description instead clarifies what the output contains, which is the only semantic information an agent needs for this tool.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the project registry' and specifies the exact output format (name, path, last-opened time). This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from general sibling tools like 'list' or 'show'.
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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It does give useful contextual guidance—entries are auto-created and refreshed as grove commands run, and the server is bound to a single root—so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate, but the routing is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.