list_projectsRetrieve agency projects newest first, then filter by name, URL, external ID, or status to find the project you need.
Lists the agency projects, newest first. Find one by name or URL with q, or by your own external_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Part of the name or URL | |
| limit | No | Rows to return, 20 by default, 50 at most | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page | |
| status | No | ||
| external_id | 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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that results come newest first, but says nothing about paging behavior despite a cursor parameter, nor about what happens when no filters match.
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?
Two short sentences, the ordering trait front-loaded and the filtering guidance second. No filler.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, ordering, and the two lookup paths. The only gap is the status enum and cursor paging, though the schema's own descriptions for limit and cursor partially carry that load.
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 coverage is only 60% (status and external_id have no schema descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does clarify external_id as 'your own external_id' — a caller-owned identifier rather than an agency-assigned ID — and maps q to name-or-URL matching. It leaves status unexplained, but adds real meaning over the schema for two of five parameters.
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 specific verb and resource ('Lists the agency projects') plus the sort order ('newest first'), which is immediately distinguishable from get_project. It stops short of naming how it differs from sibling listing tools like list_events or list_listings, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
It tells the agent how to find a specific project ('by name or URL with q, or by your own external_id'), which implies the lookup use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_project guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.