flow_projectsLists your account's Flow projects by most recent update, including purpose and upload count for created projects, so you can decide whether to continue or start new.
Lists the account's Flow projects, most recently updated first, with the purpose and upload count this tool recorded for projects it created. Use it to decide whether to continue a project or start a new one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value with the sort order and the caveat that purpose and upload count exist only for projects this tool created. It does not discuss result-set size or pagination, but with no parameters that risk is minor.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the capability and ordering come first, and the decision guidance follows.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (ordering, purpose, upload count) and when to use it. A quick note on the shape of each entry or result size would close the last gap.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.
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 (lists) and resource (the account's Flow projects), plus ordering (most recently updated first) and the extra fields returned. No sibling tool lists projects, so it is easily distinguished from flow_status, flow_assets, and the generate_* tools.
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?
"Use it to decide whether to continue a project or start a new one" gives a concrete decision context for calling it. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.