get_project_countsCount projects by status (active, on hold, completed, dropped, stalled) with optional folder scope to analyze project distribution.
Get aggregate project counts by status (active, on hold, completed, dropped, stalled)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | Optional folder name to scope counts to |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true ben openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination, empty results, or error behavior, but for a simple aggregate read operation with an output schema, this is acceptable.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary operation and the key grouping dimension. No filler or redundant elaboration.
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 simple aggregate-read tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description conveys everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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% and the parameter description already explains that folder is an optional scope. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('aggregate project counts') and the dimension by which counts are grouped (status). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_projects and get_task_counts by focusing on status-based aggregate counts.
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?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving aggregate status counts, with an optional folder scope, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like list_projects for detailed project data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.