projects_listRetrieve a paginated list of projects for a given organization, ordered by creation date and ID, using a cursor to fetch next pages.
Items are ordered by created_at descending, then id descending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of items to return in one page. | |
| orgID | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. Omit for the first page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description does add one genuinely useful trait beyond annotations — the deterministic sort order (created_at desc, then id desc) — but omits pagination behavior and what a page returns.
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?
One efficient, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, its brevity stems from under-specification rather than tight expression, so it is concise but not adequately informative.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description should convey what a project is and what the response contains, but it covers only ordering. Combined with an undocumented orgID, it is incomplete even for a simple read endpoint.
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?
With 67% schema description coverage, the schema documents limit and cursor but leaves orgID (pattern only) unexplained, and the description adds zero parameter meaning. It does not compensate for the coverage gap or clarify the org scoping requirement.
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 never states what the tool does; it only describes result ordering. The purpose ('list projects') is inferable solely from the name and title, making the description effectively silent on the core verb+resource.
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 alternatives like projects_create or other list endpoints, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an org context. The single sentence provides no usage framing at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.