freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent_list_projects

Read-only

List FreeAgent projects with optional filters by status view, sort order, or contact; paginate results to manage project data.

Instructions

List projects from FreeAgent, optionally filtered by view, sort order, or contact

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "freeagent_list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number to fetch (default 1)
`sort`	No	Sort order for results
`view`	No	Filter projects by status view
`contact`	No	Filter by contact URL
`per_page`	No	Results per page (default 25, max 100). Check pagination.next_page in the response for more results.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / page

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Page number to fetch (default 1)",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / per_page

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Results per page (default 25, max 100). Check pagination.next_page in the response for more results.",
+  "maximum": 100,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds only that filtering is optional; it says nothing about ordering semantics for `sort`, default result set scope, or rate/auth considerations that would enrich the annotated behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and filter set front-loaded and no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint, though it could have used its remaining space for one differentiating clause about siblings.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it omits how results are ordered by default, what happens with the paginated response, and why one would choose this over freeagent_get_project. No output schema exists, so a brief note on returned collections would have added value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including enum values for `view` and explicit defaults for `page`/`per_page`, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description names three of five parameters (view, sort, contact) without adding meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List projects from FreeAgent") plus the optional filter axes, which distinguishes it clearly from freeagent_get_project / create_project / update_project / delete_project by name alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word "List" and the optional filters imply the usage context (browsing/enumerating projects), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus freeagent_get_project for a single record, nor any note about pagination behavior or empty results when filtering by a status view.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server