argocd_list_projectsList Argo CD projects with concise rows showing repo/destination counts, role names, and sync-window counts. Supports name filtering and paging.
List projects with slim rows (repo/destination counts, role names, sync-window count).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter to one project name | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (1-200) | |
| offset | No | Result offset for paging |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that returned rows are a 'slim' projection with counts rather than full project objects, which is genuine extra context, though it says nothing about pagination defaults or result caps.
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 sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource and the row-shape detail appended. Appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description does carry some burden for describing returns, and it partially discharges that with the 'slim rows' preview. However, it omits pagination behavior and the fact that name filters to a single project, leaving an agent to infer these from the schema alone.
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%, with name, limit, and offset each documented inline including the 1-200 bound on limit. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (projects), and the parenthetical previews the row shape (repo/destination counts, role names, sync-window count). It is clearly distinguishable from argocd_get_project by the listing scope, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 versus argocd_get_project (single project) or the many other list_* siblings. Nothing about filtering by name, paging, or when the slim projection is preferable. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.