NeoCoder Neo4j AI Workflow

list_projects

Retrieve a list of projects, optionally filtered by programming language and result limit, to identify relevant codebases.

Instructions

List all available projects.

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": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of projects to return
`language`	No	Filter by programming language

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'all available projects,' but the schema includes a 'limit' parameter with a default of 10, implying the tool does not actually return all projects by default. It also fails to mention default behavior, pagination, or filtering semantics, which is a notable transparency gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and communicates the core action immediately, earning a high conciseness score even though it lacks depth.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It omits critical context such as the default limit, language filtering, pagination, and how it relates to sibling tools. The conflict between 'all' and the limit parameter further reduces completeness.

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 100%, as both parameters ('limit' and 'language') have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter insight, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all available projects.' It clearly indicates this is a listing operation, distinct from the singular 'get_project' sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state how it differs from other list tools or mention the scope/filtering options.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is used when you need to view all projects, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_project or other list tools. It would benefit from noting that get_project is for a single project and that filtering/pagination parameters are available.

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