GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_project_list

Read-only

List accessible GitFlic projects, including team projects, and filter by owner, name, scope, language, or visibility to find relevant projects.

Instructions

List accessible projects, including team projects. Defaults to scope shared; filter by owner alias.

Tool call template

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": "gitflic_project_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Project name filter.
`all`	No	Fetch all pages. Defaults to true when page is omitted.
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`page`	No	Zero-based page index; selects one page unless all is true.
`size`	No	Requested page size; server limits are respected.
`sort`	No	Sort field.
`limit`	No	Return at most N matched projects.
`owner`	No	Owner alias, such as a team alias; used with scope shared.
`scope`	No	Default shared includes projects you participate in.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`private`	No	Filter visibility.
`language`	No	Project language.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds that the default scope is 'shared' (a behavioral default that changes results). It says nothing about the slim-vs-raw response behavior, pagination interaction, or result volume, which are the meaningful risks for a 12-parameter list tool.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the default that most affects results. Nothing is wasted, though the second clause is telegraphic ('filter by owner alias') and could name the parameter explicitly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the two decision-relevant facts: default scope and owner-based narrowing. Interaction between all/page/limit and the raw/fields compression flags is left entirely to the schema, which is a modest gap but not a blocking one.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines q, all, raw, page, owner, scope and the rest, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the scope default and the owner/scope pairing, adding mild emphasis but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('List accessible projects') and adds scope ('including team projects'), which tells an agent this is not limited to the caller's own projects. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling gitflic_project_list_my, so the differentiation is only implied by 'accessible' and the default-scope note.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a concrete default ('Defaults to scope shared') and a usage pairing ('filter by owner alias'), which implies how to narrow results. However, it never says when to prefer this over gitflic_project_list_my or gitflic_project_get, and offers no exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server