Lists available project lifecycle phase definitions in OpenProject so agents can discover valid phase types before assigning or filtering project data.
List available project lifecycle phase definitions exposed by OpenProject.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.3.3v0.3.0v0.2.3Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$defs": {
- "ProjectPhaseDefinition": {
- "properties": {
- "created_at": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Created At"
- },
- "finish_gate": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Finish Gate"
- },
- "id": {
- "title": "Id",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "name": {
- "title": "Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "start_gate": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Start Gate"
- },
- "updated_at": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Updated At"
- },
- "url": {
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "name",
- "start_gate",
- "finish_gate",
- "created_at",
- "updated_at",
- "url"
- ],
- "title": "ProjectPhaseDefinition",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "results": {
- "items": {
- "$ref": "#/$defs/ProjectPhaseDefinition"
- },
- "title": "Results",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "count",
- "results"
- ],
- "title": "ProjectPhaseDefinitionListResult",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the hint that these are instance-level definitions 'exposed by OpenProject' rather than project-scoped ones; it says nothing about ordering, volume, or whether the set is configurable.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word (available, lifecycle, definitions, exposed by OpenProject) carries scoping information.
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 no-argument list tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it identifies the resource and that it is an enumeration of available definitions. It could note what a phase definition comprises (name, id) since no output schema documents the return shape.
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?
Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing about arguments for the description to clarify or omit.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (project lifecycle phase definitions) with the scope 'exposed by OpenProject'. It is reasonably distinguishable from the singular get_project_phase_definition and from get_project_phase, though it never explicitly says how they differ.
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 on when this tool should be used instead of get_project_phase_definition or get_project_phase. The agent must infer the list-vs-get distinction purely from the naming pattern in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.