List TestRail projects with optional pagination and filtering by completed status.
List all projects
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items (max 250, default 250) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default 0) | |
| is_completed | No | 1=completed, 0=active |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List all projects' implies an unbounded result, but the schema shows a default limit of 250, offset pagination, and an is_completed filter, none of which are mentioned. This is a meaningful behavioral gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful behavioral context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by clarifying pagination, filtering, and return conventions. It does none of this, and the word 'all' is actively misleading given the default limit of 250.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and all three parameters already have clear descriptions (limit, offset, is_completed). The description adds no new parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a clear verb+resource pair ('List all projects') and implies a plural listing, which distinguishes it from get_project (singular) and CRUD siblings. It is specific enough that an agent can infer the basic operation without opening the schema.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project, nor any mention of context such as filtering or pagination needs. The description simply states the action without exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.