Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RBPaaS MCP Server

RBPaaS MCP Server

by mm-gtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_project_list

Retrieve a list of projects with filters for status, active flag, and pagination to access RBPaaS project data.

Instructions

プロジェクト一覧を取得する。

Args: status: ステータスでフィルタ (planning/active/completed/on_hold/cancelled) is_active: アクティブなプロジェクトのみ取得するか (デフォルト: True) skip: スキップ件数 limit: 取得件数上限

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": "get_project_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skipNo
limitNo
statusNo
is_activeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, but the description discloses some behavioral aspects: the default for is_active (True), filtering by status, and pagination via skip/limit. However, it does not describe the return format or any side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured with an Args block, front-loading the main purpose. The main sentence is a bit tautological with the tool name, but the parameter details justify the length.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the returned project objects look like. It does not, leaving the output shape ambiguous. The parameter details are solid, but the lack of return value documentation prevents a higher score.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides meaningful definitions for all four parameters: status enum values, is_active default, skip count, and limit. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Get project list' and then details filtering parameters, making the tool's purpose evident. It differentiates from siblings like get_project_detail by the list scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does and its parameters, without any contextual or exclusionary advice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools