Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

by soil-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

list_party_projects

Read-only

Retrieve all projects associated with a specific party to answer what that contact is involved in, without enumerating every project. Accepts optional embed fields.

Instructions

List projects linked to a given party. Returns the same record shape as get_project, filtered to one party — use this to answer 'what projects is X involved in?' without enumerating all projects. Accepts optional embed (e.g. 'tags,fields'). For the opportunity-side analogue, use list_party_opportunities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
embedNoComma-separated embeds. Valid tokens: tags, fields, party, opportunity, missingImportantFields.
partyIdYes
perPageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "partyId"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / embed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Comma-separated embeds. Valid tokens: tags, fields, party, opportunity, missingImportantFields.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv1.7.0
  4. Removedv1.6.2
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are filtered to one party, share the get_project record shape, and support optional embeds, including a concrete example.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences pack the core purpose, scoping, return-shape relationship, embed usage, and an alternative tool pointer with no filler. Important facts are front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only list operation, the description is largely complete: it names the input (party), explains the output shape by referencing get_project, and mentions embeds. Minor ambiguity remains about what 'linked' means (primary party vs additional/associated parties), but the description's use-case phrasing mitigates this.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies partyId's role ('given party') and marks embed as optional with an example, but it does not add much semantic detail for page and perPage or go beyond the schema's embed description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List projects linked to a given party.' It also distinguishes itself from get_project by noting it returns the same record shape but filtered to one party, and positions it as the way to answer 'what projects is X involved in?' without enumerating all projects.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to answer the involvement question without listing every project. It also routes to the alternative for the opportunity side, list_party_opportunities, which makes the choice between tools clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools