get_projectsList projects from the accounting pipeline by status or search name to review deals, active work, and completed items.
List projects (pipeline, active, completed). Use when the user asks about their projects, deals, or pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Search by project name | |
| status | No | Filter by status: pitched, won, in_progress, completed, lost, all (default: all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the status scope (pipeline, active, completed) and the default 'all' behavior via the schema, but doesn't add behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination or ordering.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the usage trigger follows immediately. No wasted words.
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 simple read-only list tool with 2 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that no parameters are required, but the schema already shows required: 0. The usage trigger covers the main context.
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 100%, so both parameters (search, status) are already documented in the schema. The description adds a slight clarification by listing statuses in prose, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects') and enumerates the statuses covered (pipeline, active, completed). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'list_opportunities' or 'update_project' beyond the resource name.
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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use when the user asks about their projects, deals, or pipeline.' This tells an agent when to invoke it, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like list_opportunities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.