Retrieve a complete list of all projects managed in HAOps for easy project overview and planning.
List all projects in HAOps
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": "haops_list_projects"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or any constraints, leaving the agent uninformed about potential 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words. It earns its place entirely.
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 low complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not rich. It does not elaborate on return format, scope of 'all projects', or any prerequisites, leaving some context gaps.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no param info, which is appropriate. Baseline score of 4 is justified as no additional meaning is needed.
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 'List all projects in HAOps' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (projects), distinguishing it from sibling list tools for other entities.
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 description provides a clear intended use (listing projects) but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. However, given the simplicity of a parameterless list, the context is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.