Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ragnarok

ragnarok

by freyr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

find_projects

Find earlier projects a prompt continues or resembles, ranked by matching notes, to surface related work and next actions.

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, state, 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
vaultNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "find_projectsDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the ranking behavior (results ordered by matching notes) and the per-result fields, but never confirms read-only safety, explains how matches are computed, or covers truncation/limit behavior — meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, which is good. However, the second sentence enumerates return fields (slug, vault, folder, description, stage, state, next action, matching notes) that the output schema already covers, so it spends its remaining budget on redundant content.

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?

A semantic/ranked search tool with an output schema and zero schema description coverage needs the description to explain the query semantics and the vault filter; it does neither. The one sentence of real value (ranking by matching notes) is offset by return-field enumeration that duplicates the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so all three parameters (query, limit, vault) depend on the description. The query is loosely characterized as a prompt that resembles prior projects, but 'limit' and the 'vault' filter are never explained, and 'vault' appears only as an output field, leaving ambiguity over whether it also scopes the search.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the earlier projects') plus the matching concept — projects a prompt continues or resembles — which distinguishes it from open_projects and list_project. The notion of ranking by matching notes makes the intent concrete, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'prompt continues or resembles' framing suggests when to reach for this (resuming or de-duplicating prior work), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no alternative such as search or open_projects is offered for overlapping cases.

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