Skip to main content
Glama

List Projects

localnest_list_projects
Read-onlyIdempotent

List top-level project directories from a specified root path to organize and access local codebases efficiently.

Instructions

List first-level project directories under a root.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
root_pathNo
max_entriesNo
limitNo
offsetNo
response_formatNojson

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
metaNo

Implementation Reference

  • Registration and handler implementation for the 'localnest_list_projects' MCP tool. It delegates to workspace.listProjects and handles pagination.
    registerJsonTool(
      'localnest_list_projects',
      {
        title: 'List Projects',
        description: 'List first-level project directories under a root.',
        inputSchema: {
          root_path: z.string().optional(),
          max_entries: z.number().int().min(1).max(1000).optional(),
          limit: z.number().int().min(1).max(1000).default(100),
          offset: z.number().int().min(0).default(0)
        },
        annotations: {
          readOnlyHint: true,
          destructiveHint: false,
          idempotentHint: true,
          openWorldHint: false
        }
      },
      async ({ root_path, max_entries, limit, offset }) => {
        const effectiveLimit = max_entries || limit;
        const projects = workspace.listProjects(root_path, 2000);
        const paged = paginateItems(projects, effectiveLimit, offset);
        return {
          ...paged,
          truncated_total: projects.length === 2000
        };
      }
    );
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'first-level' scope constraint, which is valuable. However, it fails to disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), the distinction between 'max_entries' and 'limit', or what criteria define a 'project' versus a regular directory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise at 7 words in a single sentence. The information density is high but given the complexity (5 undocumented parameters, pagination), the brevity harms completeness. No redundant words, but potentially too terse for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema (covering return values), the description is inadequate for a tool with 5 undocumented parameters. Missing critical context: pagination mechanics, the relationship between max_entries and limit, and the definition of a 'project' directory.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage across 5 parameters, the description fails to compensate adequately. It only implicitly references 'root_path' via 'under a root', leaving pagination parameters (limit, offset), max_entries, and response_format completely unexplained despite their critical impact on behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('List') and resource ('first-level project directories') with clear scope ('under a root'). It distinguishes from sibling 'localnest_project_tree' via 'first-level' (implying non-recursive), though it could explicitly contrast with 'localnest_list_roots'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'localnest_list_roots' or 'localnest_project_tree'. No mention that 'root_path' should typically come from 'list_roots' or that pagination parameters may be needed for large directories.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wmt-mobile/localnest'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server