list-project-tokensIdentify active and stored Goby project tokens, including source and masked values, to resolve unauthorized or missing token errors.
Show which Goby token (masked) is active for the current project directory, where it came from, and every stored per-project token. Use this first when a Goby call fails with unauthorized or 'no token configured'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that tokens are masked and that the tool lists all stored per-project tokens, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the command has side effects, requires authentication, or what happens if no tokens exist. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output details, followed by a clear usage trigger. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers what it shows, the masking behavior, and when to use it. It does not describe the output format, but with no output schema and a simple listing use case, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description instead clarifies the scope of the output (current project directory, all stored per-project tokens), which is the relevant semantic context. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.
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 tool's function: showing which Goby token is active for the current project directory, its origin, and all stored per-project tokens. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('Goby token'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set-project-token and remove-project-token by focusing on listing/displaying rather than modifying.
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 explicitly says to use this tool first when a Goby call fails with unauthorized or 'no token configured'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies it is a diagnostic first step, which differentiates it from token management siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.