Retrieve a list of all JIRA projects with their key and name to identify which project to use for issue operations.
JIRA プロジェクトの一覧を取得します
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.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or response format, leaving behavioral traits opaque.
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 in Japanese that front-loads the purpose without redundancy. It earns its place fully.
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?
Given the zero-parameter, no-output-schema, simple list nature, the description is mostly complete. Slight addition on return structure or limits would improve clarity, but the current text is adequate for a simple listing operation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies as the schema is vacuously complete.
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?
Description clearly states the verb and resource: '取得します' (retrieve) and 'JIRA プロジェクトの一覧' (list of JIRA projects). It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on issues, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
While no explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, the tool's purpose is self-evident: use it to retrieve JIRA projects. Context clearly separates it from issue-centric siblings, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.