Retrieve paginated risks for a specific project, including total count and pagination details to manage large risk lists.
Get risks for a project with pagination. Returns { items, total, limit, skip, hasMore }. Default limit: 50, max: 200.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of risks to skip (for pagination) | |
| limit | No | Max risks to return (default 50, max 200) | |
| projectId | Yes | The project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains pagination defaults, maximums, and return shape, but does not cover permissions, ordering, or other read-operation traits.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and pagination behavior. Every sentence adds information and there is no wasted text.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description helpfully includes the return object shape. For a simple read/list tool this is mostly complete, though it could mention ordering or what fields a risk contains.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the default limit and max, adding little beyond what the schema provides.
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 and resource: 'Get risks for a project.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_risk or get_project_issues.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by saying 'for a project' but never names sibling tools or conditions for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.