Retrieve all available views for a GitHub project to organize and visualize tasks, milestones, and sprints effectively.
List all views in a GitHub project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does 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. It states the action ('List all views') but fails to describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and output format, which are essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. This makes it inadequate for practical use.
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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'in a GitHub project', which implies the 'projectId' parameter is required, but does not explain what format the ID should be (e.g., numeric, string), where to find it, or any constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('views in a GitHub project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_project_fields' or 'list_project_items', which also list project-related resources, leaving some ambiguity in differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_project_items' or 'get_project', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a valid project ID. Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.