Lists all Taiga projects accessible to the agent, returning each project's ID, name, and slug so you can identify and select a board before making further calls.
List all accessible Taiga projects with ID, name, slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it indicates permission-scoped results via "accessible" and signals the return shape via "ID, name, slug." However, it omits pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, and explicit read-only safety context.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the operation, scope, and key returned fields.
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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return fields and access scope. It is nearly complete, though pagination or ordering details would make it fully self-contained.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return fields. With no parameters and full schema coverage, this is the expected baseline.
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 states a specific verb, "List," and a specific resource, "Taiga projects," and identifies the returned fields "ID, name, slug." It does not explicitly name the sibling taiga_get_project, but the plural/all scope still makes the enumerating purpose clear.
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?
The phrase "List all accessible" implies the tool is for enumerating projects available to the caller, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus taiga_get_project or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.