list_projectsRetrieve projects that hold tasks or notes, with counts and paths sorted by newest activity, so you can locate work by slug or path.
Projects that hold a task or a note, newest activity first, with counts and paths. Empty ones are left out (empty_projects_omitted) but still resolve by slug or path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Your model id, e.g. 'claude-opus-5'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the description must add the rest — and it does: activity-based ordering, inclusion of counts and paths, and the non-obvious behavior that empty projects are omitted yet still resolvable by slug or path. That last point is genuine behavioral value an agent would not otherwise know; it stops short of describing pagination or result size limits.
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?
Two compact sentences with the result shape front-loaded and the exception case second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title, and the parenthetical flag name is the only mildly cryptic element.
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 output schema, the description is the only place return values can be explained, and it does sketch them (ordering, counts, paths). What 'counts' counts (tasks, notes, or both) is left ambiguous, which is a minor but real gap for a listing 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?
There is a single optional parameter (model) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names the resource (projects) and specifies the exact result set: projects holding a task or a note, sorted newest-activity-first, carrying counts and paths. It also states a scope constraint (empty projects omitted), which distinguishes it from a naive 'all projects' listing. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from list_tasks or other enumeration 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named. The note that empty projects are excluded tells the agent about coverage, but it does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus list_tasks, get_context, or search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.