testit-mcp-server

list_projects

Read-only

Retrieve projects with optional filters for name, archived status, and favorite status, plus paging, sorting, and field search to locate the projects you need.

Instructions

List projects, optionally filtered by name, archive or favorite flag.

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

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Filter by (part of) project name.
`page`	No	1-based page number; alternative to skip. Uses "size" (default 50).
`size`	No	Page size for "page"; alias of take.
`skip`	No	Number of items to skip (offset).
`take`	No	Max number of items to return.
`orderBy`	No	Sort expression, e.g. "createdDate desc".
`isDeleted`	No	Return archived projects.
`isFavorite`	No
`searchField`	No	Field name to search in.
`searchValue`	No	Value to search for in searchField.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not disclose pagination defaults, whether all projects are returned or a capped set, ordering behavior, or how the archive flag interacts with the default view — all behavioral facts an agent would want before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding and no redundant restatement of the name. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting filters (ordering, search, paging) that the tool actually supports.

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?

For a ten-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers only the three simplest filters and leaves pagination, sorting, and field-scoped search behavior unexplained. The schema documents individual parameters, but nothing describes how they combine or what the call returns.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3 and the descriptions of the ten parameters already carry the meaning. The prose only echoes three filters (name, archive, favorite) and adds no interpretation for the page/skip/take aliasing or the searchField/searchValue pairing.

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 ('List projects') plus the filtering dimensions available (name, archive, favorite flag), so the agent knows exactly what comes back at a high level. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling 'search_projects', leaving the agent to guess which of the two list/search tools to pick.

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?

The word 'optionally' and the enumerated filters imply the usage pattern (browse all vs. narrow down), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of when 'search_projects' would be the better choice. With a near-identical sibling present, the missing routing guidance is a real gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server