Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

jira_get_projects

Lists Jira projects matching an optional query, with pagination controls for start index and result count.

Instructions

Lists Jira projects (GET /rest/api/3/project/search).

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": "jira_get_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
startAtNo
maxResultsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and access behavior. It reveals only the HTTP method and endpoint, implying a read-only list, but says nothing about authentication, pagination behavior, or whether it returns all projects vs a filtered subset.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single line, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the endpoint as a low-cost disambiguator. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it doesn't clarify the query parameter, pagination semantics, or what fields are returned. It is minimally callable with zero arguments, but an agent needing filtered or paginated results has to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides names, types, and numeric constraints but no descriptions, and the description adds no parameter meaning. 'query' remains ambiguous (project name vs key vs text search), and startAt/maxResults are only weak clues to pagination, which the description never mentions.

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 uses an explicit action ('Lists') and resource ('Jira projects'), and adds the exact REST endpoint, which makes the operation unambiguous among the Jira siblings. It does not state what subset of projects is returned or whether query changes scope, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as jira_search_jql or when not to use it. An agent must infer from the name that 'get projects' is for project enumeration, so the when-to-use context is essentially unaddressed.

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