Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Productive Simple MCP

Productive Simple MCP

by druellan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_projects

Read-only

Retrieve all projects with key details like ID, name, status, and direct webapp links. Quickly view project data for read-only access.

Instructions

List all projects with basic information.

Returns project data including:

  • Project ID, name, and number

  • Creation and last activity timestamps

  • Archived status (if applicable)

  • Webapp URL for direct access

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.7

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, and the description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields (ID, name, timestamps, archived status, webapp URL). It does not discuss pagination or sorting, but for a zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, this is sufficient.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact bullet list of return fields. Every line adds value, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema provided), the description covers what the caller needs to know about the result. It lacks explicit notes about potential result size or pagination, but this is a minor gap for a simple list operation.

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 has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description appropriately focuses on the output, which is more relevant here, so no additional parameter guidance is needed.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_folders. It also specifies the scope ('all projects') and the nature of the returned data.

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 description implies the use case: to get a basic overview of all projects. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like quick_search or list_recent_activity, nor does it provide exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools