list_projectsList all portfolio projects with a one-line summary and project ID for each, enabling quick identification before fetching full project details.
One-line summary of each project with its id. Use get_project for full detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying the output is a summary (one-line) and includes ids, which is not derivable from the annotation or schema.
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 short sentences convey the purpose, output format, and the alternative tool with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded.
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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it explains what is returned, and the annotation covers the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
With zero parameters, there is nothing to document, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
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 behavior: returning a one-line summary of each project with its id. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_project by noting that the latter provides full detail, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly names an alternative and the condition for choosing it: 'Use get_project for full detail.' This clearly implies this tool is for quick summaries, effectively telling an agent when to select it over the relevant sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.