Moxie CRM MCP Server

search_projects

Find projects in your Moxie workspace, optionally filtering by client name to narrow results.

Instructions

Search for projects in your Moxie workspace, optionally filtered by client name

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": "search_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No	Search query to filter projects by client name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the search is scoped to the workspace and that the query is an optional client-name filter, but does not specify default behavior (e.g., empty query returns all projects), return format, or any side effects (though search implies read-only). The disclosed filter behavior adds some transparency but significant behavioral details remain implicit.

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?

Single sentence, 10 words, front-loads the core action and scopes the search. No wasted words or redundant restatement 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 simple search tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what it searches and its filter capability. However, it could optionally state that no query returns all projects or hint at the response format, but these omissions are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with the description of 'query' explicitly stating it filters by client name. The tool description adds the 'optionally' nuance and workspace context, but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Search') and resource ('projects'), and clarifies the workspace scope ('Moxie workspace') and the optional filter by client name. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_clients and search_contacts, which target different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool's role (find projects, optionally narrowed by client name) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context for a typical search use case, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like list_clients.

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