Skip to main content
Glama

kernel_projects_list

Lists projects with their status, connector state, and pending drafts; optionally filter by office flow ID to see projects served by a specific office.

Instructions

List projects (products/businesses offices work for) with status, connector state and pending drafts.

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": "kernel_projects_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flow_idNoOnly projects served by this office

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose that each project carries status, connector state, and pending-draft information, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about result scope (all offices vs. one), pagination/limits, or permission requirements, so the safety and volume profile of the call remains unclear.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first, the clarifying parenthetical second, and the returned fields last. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, domain meaning, and the shape of the returned data. The remaining omission is pagination and default scoping, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter flow_id is already documented as 'Only projects served by this office'. The description adds no syntax, ID format, or default-scope information beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb ('List') on a specific resource ('projects') and even glosses the domain term as 'products/businesses offices work for', plus it names the fields returned (status, connector state, pending drafts). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling kernel_projects_get, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 plural verb and the no-required-parameter schema imply 'call this to enumerate projects', and the sole filter's schema text implies narrowing by office. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over kernel_projects_get or kernel_projects_pull, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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