Retrieve visible GitHub Project v2 items with their content and field values to coordinate cross-repository work. Use organization and project number, with cursor pagination for large boards.
List visible Project v2 items, content and field values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| number | Yes | ||
| organization | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Visible' hints at permission-based filtering, but it never states the auth requirements, whether the result is paginated despite the cursor parameter, or how many items are returned per page.
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 short sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padding.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin for a paginated list tool with two required parameters. An agent cannot determine return shape, pagination behavior, or permission scoping from it.
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 0% for all three parameters (cursor, number, organization). The description only alludes to 'Project v2' and 'visible', which loosely implies organization scoping and project numbering but gives no formats, constraints, or cursor semantics.
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 (List) and resource (Project v2 items, content and field values), so an agent can tell it apart from list_projects and get_project. The trailing phrase 'content and field values' is vague about what is actually returned, and 'visible' is undefined.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_projects or get_project, and no prerequisites or context for the required organization/number pair. Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.