Retrieve projects from a specific T3 Code environment using its environment ID, enabling direct project management.
List projects from one explicitly selected T3 Code environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environmentId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| projects | No | ||
| environmentId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping constraint of a single selected environment, which is useful but does not reveal additional behavior beyond what annotations provide.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the essential scoping condition is stated clearly.
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 read-only tool with one parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context. It could add a note about obtaining the environmentId via list_environments, but that is inferable from the sibling tool set.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for environmentId's meaning. It does so implicitly by referring to 'one explicitly selected T3 Code environment,' tying the parameter to the selected environment. However, it does not explicitly map environmentId to a format or source.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List projects' from a 'T3 Code environment.' It also differentiates from siblings like list_environments by specifying the resource type and scope.
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 phrase 'one explicitly selected T3 Code environment' establishes a clear precondition: the caller must have a specific environment selected before listing projects. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for a one-resource read tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.