Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vercel-mcp-pro

vercel-mcp-pro

by helbertparanhos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_projects

List projects in your Vercel account or team, with optional filtering by name or repository URL.

Instructions

List projects in the account/team. Optionally filter by name or repo.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
searchNoFilter by project name substring.
repoUrlNoFilter by connected Git repo URL.
limitNoMaximum number of items to return.
teamIdNoTeam ID to scope the request. Falls back to VERCEL_TEAM_ID when omitted.
slugNoTeam slug to scope the request (alternative to teamId).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, result ordering, default limits, or any side effects, leaving the agent with no knowledge of how the tool behaves beyond its existence.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks structure and fails to include essential context like pagination or team scoping, making it under-specified despite its brevity.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more contextual completeness (e.g., output format, pagination behavior). It only covers basic functionality, leaving significant gaps for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds 'filter by name or repo' which loosely maps to search and repoUrl, but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states 'List projects' using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project or delete_project. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from other list_* tools by specifying the scope (account/team), which is already implied.

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?

The description includes 'Optionally filter by name or repo' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_project for a single project, or other list_* tools for different entities).

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