jira_list_projectsFetch all accessible Jira projects to support issue management and agile board workflows.
List all accessible Jira projects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — results are permission-scoped ('accessible') and unfiltered ('all') — but says nothing about pagination or the shape/size of the result, which matters for a listing tool with no output schema.
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 zero filler — the verb and resource lead. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, but on the conciseness axis it is clean and wastes nothing.
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 zero-parameter read, annotations carry the safety profile, but with no output schema the description is the only place a caller could learn what comes back (list of project keys/names, pagination, result limits) and it omits that. Adequate but with a real gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies the call needs no input.
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 ('Jira projects') with a scope qualifier ('all accessible'), so the intent is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but no sibling duplicates this function, so differentiation is not really at stake.
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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g. jira_get_project_versions or jira_list_fields), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name, which is the definition of minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.