firebase_list_projectsLists Firebase projects accessible to the authenticated identity, helping you browse or select a project for further Firebase management tasks.
Lists Firebase projects the authenticated identity can access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageToken | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — results are filtered by the caller's identity/access — but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a pageToken parameter, nor about ordering, result limits, or whether it also returns GCP projects.
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. It is efficiently written, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than tight conciseness.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, but it omits pagination semantics and sibling disambiguation — the two things an agent actually needs to invoke it correctly rather than gcp_list_projects.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single pageToken parameter is documented nowhere. The description adds no meaning about the continuation-token contract (where the token comes from, how to page, when it is absent), which is exactly the kind of information the schema lacks.
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 (Lists) and resource (Firebase projects) plus a scoping qualifier (accessible to the authenticated identity). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the very similar sibling gcp_list_projects, leaving the agent to guess which one it wants.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus gcp_list_projects or firebase_get_project, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.