Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apidog-mcp

apidog-mcp

by ixlammm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

apidog_list_team_projects

List API projects for a team. Use an optional teamId to specify a team, otherwise the default APIDOG_TEAM_ID applies.

Instructions

List projects for APIDOG_TEAM_ID, or for an explicit teamId.

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": "apidog_list_team_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('List') but does not explain the meaning of APIDOG_TEAM_ID, error handling, or side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity about the default behavior.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates both the purpose and the key parameter behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter list tool, the description covers the core action and parameter distinction, but leaves the APIDOG_TEAM_ID concept unexplained and does not mention response format, pagination, or error behavior. Given no output schema or annotations, this is a notable gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaning to the bare schema by explaining that teamId is optional and that an explicit value overrides the default APIDOG_TEAM_ID. This goes beyond the schema's simple integer type, giving the agent critical usage context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'projects' with a scoping condition: either the configured APIDOG_TEAM_ID or an explicit teamId. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_list_user_projects, which list projects for the current user.

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 description presents two usage modes (default team vs explicit teamId) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context implies it is the team-scoped listing tool, but without exclusions or references to sibling tools, guidance is only partially clear.

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