Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apidog-mcp

apidog-mcp

by ixlammm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

apidog_list_user_projects

List all Apidog projects accessible to the current user. Retrieve project identifiers to enable further API inspection and management.

Instructions

List projects accessible by the current user.

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_user_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the safety burden. 'List' signals a read-only operation and 'accessible by the current user' clarifies auth-based scope, but the description does not mention pagination, sort order, or explicit authentication requirements, leaving minor behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that is entirely relevant and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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 adequately conveys that the tool returns projects accessible by the current user. It would benefit from mentioning the output shape or common use cases, but the tool's simplicity makes it mostly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter elaboration. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource 'projects' scoped to 'the current user', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apidog_list_team_projects. This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as apidog_list_team_projects or apidog_list_user_teams. The single sentence gives no context, exclusions, or references to related tools.

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