ragnarok

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_projects

Locate earlier projects a prompt continues or resembles, ranked by matching notes, to surface their slug, vault, stage, and next action.

Instructions

Find the earlier projects that a prompt continues or resembles, ranked by their matching notes.

Each project has its slug, vault, folder, description, stage, next action and matching notes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`vault`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that results are ranked by matching notes and enumerates the returned fields (slug, vault, folder, description, stage, next action, matching notes), which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, result limits beyond the default, or the ranking algorithm's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Only two sentences and front-loaded with the core action, but the wording is awkward ("ranked by their matching notes") and the second sentence is a field list that could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits parameter semantics entirely and gives no usage context. It partially compensates by listing return fields, but an agent still lacks enough to call it correctly against alternatives.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about `query` (format, natural language vs keyword), `limit` (default 5, max), or `vault` (filter scope). The word "vault" appears only as a returned field, which does not clarify the parameter.

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

Purpose3/5

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

A verb and a resource appear (find + projects), but the phrase "earlier projects that a prompt continues or resembles" is vague — it's not clear whether this is a similarity search, a continuation lookup, or a keyword match. Nothing distinguishes it from the sibling `search` or `list_project`.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than `search`, `list_project`, or `find_by_jira`. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server