Skip to main content
Glama
anythink-cloud

Anythink-MCP

Official
by anythink-cloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

projects_list

List provisioned backend instances in a billing account to find each project's id, name, region, status, and API URL before connecting or deleting it. Requires platform login and an active account.

Instructions

List the projects (provisioned backend instances) in a billing account. Requires platform login and an active billing account (set one with 'accounts_use'). Returns each project's id, name, description, region, org id, status (Initializing/Provisioning/Active/Suspended/Terminated/Error), API URL, and creation date. Use this to find a project's id before connecting with 'projects_use' or removing it with 'projects_delete'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountIdNoBilling account id to list projects for. Defaults to the active account set via 'accounts_use'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.27
    • removedInput schema / description
      Removed value: -"List the projects (provisioned backend instances) in a billing account. Requires platform login and an active billing account (set one with 'accounts_use'). Returns each project's id, name, description, region, org id, status (Initializing/Provisioning/Active/Suspended/Terminated/Error), API URL, and creation date. Use this to find a project's id before connecting with 'projects_use' or removing it with 'projects_delete'."
    • changedInput schema / properties / accountId / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"projects_list"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.21
    • changedInput schema / description
      Previous value: -"List all projects in the active billing account"New value: +"List the projects (provisioned backend instances) in a billing account. Requires platform login and an active billing account (set one with 'accounts_use'). Returns each project's id, name, description, region, org id, status (Initializing/Provisioning/Active/Suspended/Terminated/Error), API URL, and creation date. Use this to find a project's id before connecting with 'projects_use' or removing it with 'projects_delete'."
    • changedInput schema / properties / accountId / description
      Previous value: -"Billing account ID (uses active account if omitted)"New value: +"Billing account id to list projects for. Defaults to the active account set via 'accounts_use'."
  3. First observedv0.2.6

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses auth requirements, the active-account dependency, and the exact shape of the returned record including the full status enum. It still omits pagination/result-limit behavior and failure modes for missing auth, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: scope, prerequisites, return fields, then routing to sibling tools. The prerequisite and return-value information is front-loaded where an agent will see it first.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows what to expect, and it covers the auth/account prerequisites. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter list tool; only pagination or result-limit behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the single optional accountId parameter is already documented in the schema, including the default-to-active-account behavior. The description repeats the account scoping but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('the projects (provisioned backend instances) in a billing account'), and the parenthetical disambiguates the domain-specific meaning of 'project'. An agent can distinguish it from projects_create, projects_use and projects_delete without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names prerequisites (platform login, an active billing account set via 'accounts_use') and states the intended use case: finding a project's id before calling 'projects_use' or 'projects_delete'. Alternatives and the condition that selects them are both given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools