list_projectsTrack project progress by viewing projects with status, open/done task counts, and next tasks; filter by idea, active, paused, done, or dropped.
List projects with status, open/done task counts, and next tasks. Statuses: idea, active, paused, done, dropped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status, e.g. 'active' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that it is a read-style listing and what data is returned, which is useful. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether task counts are scoped to the project only, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contents, followed by the valid filter values. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (status, counts, next tasks) and the valid status filter values. It is nearly complete, missing only ordering/pagination expectations.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description supplies the actual allowed status values (idea, active, paused, done, dropped), which the schema omits since it only says "e.g. 'active'" with no enum. That enumeration is real added value beyond the structured field.
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 ('projects') and enumerates what the result contains (status, open/done task counts, next tasks). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_tasks and list_notes by naming the resource, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from create_project/set_project_status.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered. The status filter implies a way to narrow results, but nothing tells the agent when to reach for this versus list_tasks, brain_overview, or other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.