Retrieve all projects from your Bugsink error tracking instance to monitor and manage error data across your applications.
List all projects in the Bugsink instance
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List all projects' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify important behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting, filtering options, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., all accessible projects vs. all in the system).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., project IDs, names, metadata), whether there are limitations (like maximum results), or how it interacts with other tools in the system. The description provides the bare minimum without addressing important contextual aspects.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, which aligns perfectly with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('projects in the Bugsink instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'list_issues', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project' (for specific project details) or 'list_issues' (for issues within projects). The description simply states what it does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.