Retrieve and filter watsonx projects across SaaS and CPD environments, returning IDs, names, descriptions, timestamps, types, creators, and public status for discovery and selection.
List projects, flattened to {id, name, description, created_at, updated_at, type, creator, public}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Server-side project-context filter, confirmed live on both SaaS and CPD. | |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| name_contains | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add the flattened result shape, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination via limit/cursor, default result counts, or ordering.
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; the operation comes first and the return shape follows. It is perhaps too terse for the number of unexplained parameters, but nothing is wasted.
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?
The return-field list partially substitutes for the missing output schema, which is a plus. However, with four parameters at 25% coverage and no output schema, the description leaves filtering and pagination behavior undocumented for an agent that must page results correctly.
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 only 25%, and the description compensates for none of the four parameters: type filtering, limit, cursor pagination, and name_contains are all unexplained. The word 'type' appears only as a returned field, which could be mistaken for the input filter rather than clarifying it.
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 and resource ('List projects') and even enumerates the flattened return fields, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_project or list_project_members, but the verb/resource pairing is clear.
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 tool versus get_project (single-project lookup) or the other list_* tools. No prerequisites, no mention of pagination expectations, and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.