list_projectsRetrieve and display accessible Backlog projects to manage development workflows and track project status.
List accessible Backlog projects.
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('List accessible Backlog projects') without describing return format, pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'accessible' means operationally. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how results are structured, or provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively beyond the basic purpose.
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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'accessible Backlog projects' which provides some context about scope, but doesn't explain the 'archived' parameter or how filtering works. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('accessible Backlog projects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issues' or 'list_repositories', but the resource specificity is adequate for basic understanding.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_issues' or 'list_repositories'. It mentions 'accessible' projects but doesn't explain what this means in context or when other listing tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.