list_projectsRetrieve a list of Redmine projects you have access to, with an optional limit on the number returned.
List accessible Redmine projects
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool lists 'accessible' projects (scope). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (despite the limit parameter) or additional constraints. With annotations, this is acceptable but minimal.
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 with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from slightly more 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?
Given the simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, read-only), the description could mention the return format (array of project objects) or default ordering. Without this, the agent may need to infer behavior. The description is incomplete for a fully self-contained tool.
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 0%. The description does not add any meaning for the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema's default/min/max. For a single optional parameter, the description should at least hint at its purpose (e.g., 'limits the number of projects returned').
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'accessible Redmine projects', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'get_project' (singular) and 'list_issues'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., use 'get_project' for a single project). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.