List all components in a project by project ID to inspect or manage its shared-memory structure.
List components in a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the project scoping and says nothing about ordering, pagination, result size, or whether it returns components across child projects.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is good structurally. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than true conciseness, so it only meets the minimum bar.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter read tool, but there is no output schema and the description does not hint at what a listed component contains or how many are returned. For a listing tool the agent needs at least a sense of the return shape and ordering.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single project_id parameter, so the schema carries no semantic detail. The phrase 'in a project' only weakly implies that project_id scopes the listing; no format, type, or behavior for that id is described.
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?
The description gives a clear verb+resource ('List components') plus a scope ('in a project'), which distinguishes it from create_component and update_component. It stops short of naming any sibling or delimiting what a 'component' is, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search or get_context. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.