List all projects from the local gflow catalog, retrieving project IDs, names, and creation dates stored in the SQLite database.
List all projects in the local gflow catalog. Returns project IDs, names, and creation dates from the SQLite database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| profile | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the local SQLite data source and the returned fields, but it does not mention that limit/offset control pagination, that the default limit is 50, or what the profile parameter selects, so 'all projects' is potentially overbroad.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the key action is front-loaded in the first word. It is concise without being under-specified.
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?
The output schema covers return values, and this is a simple read-only listing, so the description need not explain return shape. However, pagination and profile semantics are absent, which leaves an agent unsure how to actually retrieve all projects or select a profile.
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%, and the description never explains limit, offset, or profile. 'limit' and 'offset' are conventional pagination terms and 'all projects' hints at pagination, but the profile parameter remains completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('projects in the local gflow catalog'), and the returned fields (IDs, names, creation dates). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools such as gflow_list_tools and gflow_character_list.
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 tool's use case is implied by the imperative 'List all projects,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling listing tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is an implied-usage situation rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.