Retrieve published portfolio projects with optional filters for category or skill. Supports pagination for manageable browsing.
List published projects. Optionally filter by category or skill name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| limit | No | Results per page (default: 10, max: 50) | |
| skill | No | Filter by skill name | |
| category | No | Filter by project category name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List published projects,' implying a read operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, filter matching semantics (exact vs partial), or the response format. These gaps leave the agent uncertain about runtime behavior.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('List published projects') and then mentions optional filters. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it efficiently concise.
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 tool is simple with no required parameters, and the schema covers pagination details. However, the description doesn't mention that results are paginated (though page/limit exist) or describe the response shape. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left without knowledge of what the list returns. This is a moderate gap for a list tool.
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 100%, with all four parameters (page, limit, skill, category) already documented. The description adds only that filtering is optional, which is implicit in the schema (all properties are optional). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (published projects), with a clear qualifier 'published' that distinguishes it from project mutation or retrieval tools. It also notes optional filters, making the scope precise. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_project, create_project, and update_project.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_project is for a single project or that list_skills is for skills. The description provides no context on selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer based on resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.