Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ragnarok

ragnarok

by freyr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_project

Retrieve every note in a project across folders with type, status, description, stage, state, and next action to review project progress and plan the next steps.

Instructions

All notes of a project in any folder, with type, status and description, with stage, state, next action.

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": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "list_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vaultNo
projectYes

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": "list_projectDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at read-only behavior through the word 'All' and a field list; it says nothing about what happens when the project is not found, whether empty results are possible, pagination or ordering, or how the vault parameter affects scope.

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?

It is short, but the single fragment is ungrammatical and the repeated 'with ... with ...' construction buries the point. It is not front-loaded with a verb, and space is spent enumerating return fields rather than the action or its constraints.

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?

An output schema already exists, so the entire description's focus on returned fields (type, status, description, stage, state, next action) is largely redundant, while the things unique to prose — which project identifier to pass, what vault does, and any behavioral caveats — are absent. For a tool with a required identifier parameter and no annotations, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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% for both parameters, and the prose does not compensate: it never explains whether 'project' is a name, key, or ID, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or what the vault parameter selects and what its default (null) means. Only a vague association between the 'project' parameter and 'of a project' exists.

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?

The description conveys the resource (the notes belonging to one project) and implies a listing/retrieval operation, which loosely contrasts with the project-level siblings find_projects and open_projects. However, it never states a verb and reads mostly as a field inventory ('with type, status and description, with stage, state, next action'), so an agent must infer that this is a read/list operation scoped to a single 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as search or open_note, and no precondition stated for choosing this tool over them. The only implied usage is that a project must be known in advance, which comes from the required parameter rather than the prose.

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