list_projectsRetrieve the Kanbio projects your token can access, including each project key and your role, so you can identify where to read, create, or manage tickets.
List the Kanbio projects this token can reach, with their key (used by the other tools) and your role in each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are filtered to the token's permissions and each entry carries the caller's role, which sets expectations about non-exhaustive results.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and scope before the return detail. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description must describe the return values, and it does: project key plus the caller's role, scoped by token access. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead describes the shape of the response.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (Kanbio projects) plus the scope constraint 'this token can reach'. It also names what comes back (key and role), which distinguishes it unambiguously from the ticket-oriented siblings.
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 phrase 'key (used by the other tools)' implicitly tells the agent this is the entry point that yields identifiers other tools need. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the practical context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.