list_projectsRetrieve all TimeScribe projects, including archived/deleted ones, so you can use their IDs to filter time entries and resolve old references.
List all TimeScribe projects, including archived (deleted) ones, which old entries may still reference. Use the ids to filter list_entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projects | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 behavioral value by disclosing that archived/deleted projects are returned and that stale entries may still reference them — information not available in the structured fields.
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 tight sentences with zero filler. The scope caveat (archived included) is front-loaded and the actionable guidance follows immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The description covers scope, the archived-project nuance, and the intended downstream use — everything an agent needs to call this no-parameter tool correctly.
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 there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is unfiltered (it lists all projects).
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 and resource ('List all TimeScribe projects') and adds a non-obvious scope detail: archived/deleted projects are included. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_entries or get_time_summary, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
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?
Gives clear downstream guidance: 'Use the ids to filter list_entries,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right first step in a workflow. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions or an alternative project-listing route.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.