List all projects in the media library. The 'unsorted' project is always available.
List projects. 'unsorted' always exists.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_projects"
}
}| 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 are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions that 'unsorted' always exists, which is a specific but unexplained behavior. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or other common list tool behaviors.
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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence is directly functional; the second adds a useful behavioral note without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, the 'unsorted' remark is cryptic and may require further clarification. Without annotations, the description is minimally adequate but not complete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as per guidelines.
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 clearly states 'List projects', which identifies the verb and resource. The additional note about 'unsorted' existing adds some context, but it's not fully explained. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_models or create_project.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to use list_projects instead of other project-related tools like create_project or get_budget. Usage context is entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.