Retrieve all projects and their current status, optionally filtering by active, paused, completed, or archived.
List all projects with their status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status |
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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the small detail that status is returned with each project; it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering, so it is adequate but not additive.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though for a tool with a filter parameter it is arguably too sparse rather than optimally sized.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with one fully documented enum parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, little is missing. There is no output schema, so the brief mention that status is included is a reasonable touch, though filtering behavior and pagination remain unstated.
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 100%, and the single status parameter is documented in the schema with an enum of active/paused/completed/archived. The description never mentions the filter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb (List) and resource (projects), and adds a scope note about status. It does not differentiate from siblings such as list_components or get_context, but the resource is specific enough that an agent knows what it targets.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the status filter as a use case, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.