Skip to main content
Glama
lekt9

OpenReplay MCP Server

by lekt9

list_projects

Retrieve all projects in your organization to analyze user sessions, track errors, and understand behavior patterns with OpenReplay analytics.

Instructions

Get list of all projects in the organization

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the list_projects tool logic by calling the OpenReplay API to fetch projects and returning the JSON-formatted response.
    private async listProjects() {
      const response = await this.api.get(`/api/v1/projects`);
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:54-62 (registration)
    Registration of the list_projects tool in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "list_projects",
      description: "Get list of all projects in the organization",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        required: []
      }
    },
  • Input schema definition for the list_projects tool, specifying no required properties.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {},
      required: []
    }
  • src/index.ts:274-275 (registration)
    Dispatch case in the CallToolRequestSchema handler that routes calls to list_projects to the listProjects method.
    case "list_projects":
      return await this.listProjects();
Behavior2/5

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 ('Get list') but doesn't describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination, fields included), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of projects. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., project names, IDs, statuses), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., maximum number of projects). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, which is correct for this case. It gets a baseline 4 because there's nothing to compensate for, and it doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get list') and resource ('projects in the organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve project data, such as a filtered search tool, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_sessions' or 'execute_custom_query' from the sibling list. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lekt9/openreplay-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server