Fuul MCP Server

list_projects

Retrieve dashboard projects for the current user with optional pagination and search.

Instructions

Lists dashboard projects for the current user: GET /api/v1/projects with optional ?page= (1-based) and ?query=. Example: {"page":1} or {"query":"acme"}.

Tool call template

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	1-based page index; sent as ?page=
`query`	No	Search string; sent as ?query=

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.12.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description implies read-only operation via 'Lists' and mentions HTTP GET endpoint, but does not explicitly state idempotency, auth requirements, or pagination behavior beyond optional params. With no annotations, it provides moderate disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and endpoint, second explains optional parameters with examples. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema is present, and description does not explain return format (e.g., array of projects, pagination metadata). For a list tool, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about expected response structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds examples and clarifies that page is 1-based, which supplements schema's exclusiveMinimum. This adds meaningful usage context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Lists dashboard projects for the current user', indicating the verb (list), resource (dashboard projects), and scope (current user). It differentiates from siblings like get_project by focusing on listing multiple projects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_project for a single project, or list_incentives for incentives). Lacks explicit context for selective invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.