LegendKeeper MCP

list_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the LegendKeeper projects (worlds) this server is configured for, showing the default project and whether writes are enabled.

Instructions

List the LegendKeeper projects (worlds) this server is configured for, with the default project and whether writes are enabled. Each API key belongs to exactly one project.

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
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the shape of the response (default project, write-enabled flag) and the tenancy constraint that each API key maps to exactly one project - information an agent needs when reasoning about writes elsewhere.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core resource identified in the first clause and the scoping/tenancy fact placed last as supporting context. Nothing repeats the tool name as a tautology.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly self-sufficient because it explicitly states what is returned (configured projects, default project, write-enabled status). Only a note on how project identity is used by subsequent tools would make it fully complete for an orientation call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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. There is nothing parameter-related the description could usefully add, and it correctly adds none.

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 and resource ('List the LegendKeeper projects (worlds)') and immediately scopes it to 'this server is configured for', plus clarifies the parenthetical synonym 'worlds'. No sibling does anything comparable (the other list_* tools enumerate tags, templates, calendars, members, assets), so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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 mention of 'the default project and whether writes are enabled' implies this is an orientation/discovery call, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement such as 'call this before any write tool to learn which project an API key targets'. Usage must be inferred from the returned-content hint rather than stated.

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