Retrieve on-demand stanzas for a project to access their IDs, titles, descriptions, and sizes. Use this to resolve standing guidance by listing all project-specific stanzas.
List on-demand stanzas associated with a project (id, title, description, size).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate safety-relevant behavior. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the phrase 'associated with a project' scopes the behavior. Still, the description does not mention authorizations, pagination, or any side effects, though for a simple list tool this is not a critical gap.
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 sentence with no redundant words. The verb, resource, scope, and returned fields are all included in a compact, front-loaded structure.
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?
The tool is simple enough that this description is nearly sufficient for invocation: one parameter, a clear scope, and an output schema. However, the description does not clarify what makes these stanzas 'on-demand' or how this list differs from list_stanzas, so an agent may struggle to select the right tool in ambiguous contexts.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description does relate the only parameter to the operation: the stanzas returned are 'associated with a project', which maps project to the scope. It does not specify whether project expects an ID, name, or slug, but the single simple string parameter keeps this ambiguity modest.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List on-demand stanzas associated with a project' and even enumerates returned fields. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_stanzas, which could be a source of confusion.
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 phrasing implies the tool should be used when an agent needs on-demand stanzas for a given project. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as list_stanzas, so the routing decision is left mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.