GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_project_list_my

Read-only

Lists projects owned by the current user, with filters for name, privacy, language, sorting, and pagination; use the shared scope for team and member projects.

Instructions

List projects owned by the current user. Use gitflic_project_list with scope shared for team and member projects.

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_my"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Name/text filter (forwarded to GitFlic server-side, plus client match).
`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; prefix '-' for descending.
`limit`	No	Return at most N.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`private`	No	true = only private, false = only public.
`language`	No	Keep only projects in this language.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds only the ownership scope. It says nothing about pagination behavior or the slim/raw response trade-off that the schema hints at, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no padding: the scoped purpose comes first and the fallback tool second. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 ten fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description gives enough to select and call it correctly. A note on default pagination behavior would round it out, but the schema's 'all' and 'page' descriptions mostly cover that gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all ten parameters (q, all, raw, page, size, sort, limit, fields, private, language) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what those field descriptions provide, which is the expected baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List projects') and narrows the scope to 'owned by the current user,' which is exactly what distinguishes this tool from sibling gitflic_project_list. An agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly routes the agent to the alternative for team and member projects ('Use gitflic_project_list with scope shared'), including the argument value needed there, so the when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-that decision is fully resolved.

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

Deploy Server