list_projectsRetrieve all accessible Redmine projects with pagination controls, so you can browse project data and manage related issues by page.
List all accessible projects with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| include | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two traits beyond the schema: results are scoped to accessible projects and the response is paginated. It omits permission requirements, ordering, and page-size limits, so disclosure is partial.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of needed detail rather than being tightly informative.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with zero annotations, zero schema description coverage, and an undocumented 'include' parameter, the definition leaves real gaps for a listing tool that supports field expansion.
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 0% for all three parameters. The description's mention of pagination loosely gestures at limit/offset but adds no format, defaults, or bounds, and the 'include' parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('List all accessible projects') and signals scope via 'accessible'. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_project or list_issues, so an agent must infer that this is the multi-item lister rather than the single-project fetcher.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (get_project for a single project, search for filtered lookups), and no prerequisites. 'Accessible' hints at a permission-scoped listing but that is inference, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.