list_projectsRetrieve projects accessible to your API key. Filter by name, page through results, and optionally include archived projects.
List projects visible to the API key. Use search to filter by name; results are paged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| search | No | Filter by project name | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page (default 50) | |
| includeArchived | No | Include archived projects |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds scoping ('visible to the API key') and pagination ('results are paged') but does not cover rate limits, auth requirements, or return format. Given the read-only annotation, this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key behavioral detail (pagination) without redundancy.
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 list operation with a full parameter schema, the description covers the essential scope and paging. It does not describe return fields, but given no output schema is present and the tool is straightforward, this is a minor gap. The lack of alternative guidance is more of a usage-guideline issue.
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%, so all four parameters have descriptions. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as default values or format. It merely restates the search functionality already in the schema.
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 clear verb (list) and resource (projects) with a scope qualifier ('visible to the API key'). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_tasklists, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search' or 'list_tasklists'. The phrase 'Use search to filter by name' refers to the search parameter, not a tool choice, and no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.