list_projectsList the projects in an organization that the signed-in user can see, each with its document count, members and the caller's effective role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | Yes | Organization id (uuid). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / result / items / properties / documentCountAdded value: +{
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / properties / result / items / properties / transferByEmailRemoved value: -{
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
-}Output schema / properties / result / items / properties / transferOrgNameRemoved value: -{
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
-}Output schema / properties / result / items / properties / transferToEmailRemoved value: -{
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
-}Output schema / properties / result / items / properties / transferToOrgIdRemoved value: -{
- "format": "uuid",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
-}Output schema / properties / result / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "ownerId",
- "transferStatus",
- "visibility"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "order",
+ "orgId",
+ "ownerId",
+ "ownerEmail",
+ "visibility",
+ "myRole",
+ "transferStatus",
+ "documentCount",
+ "members"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark the tool as readOnlyHint, so no mutation is implied. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are filtered by the signed-in user's visibility, and the response includes the caller's effective role, which is auth/permission-relevant information not present in the 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded verb and resource, and includes only essential qualifiers. No redundant information or filler.
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?
Given the simple input (one UUID), the presence of an output schema, and the readOnly annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, visibility filter, and return highlights. Nothing significant is missing.
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 only parameter, orgId, has a complete description in the schema (type string, format uuid). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter semantics. It doesn't, which is acceptable at the baseline.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects in an organization'), and narrows scope with 'that the signed-in user can see.' It also previews returned fields (document count, members, effective role), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_orgs or create_project.
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?
The description clearly identifies the operation context: listing projects within an organization, scoped to what the signed-in user can see. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for the common case and the sibling set makes the right tool obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions clearly explain boundaries. However, list_diagrams/list_documents and get_board/get_board_image are two pairs that both concern the same underlying resource, so an agent could initially select the wrong one without reading carefully.
Nearly all tool names are snake_case verb_noun pairs such as create_project, update_document, and unpublish_listing, which is very consistent. The exceptions are bare 'draw' and the non-pattern 'whoami', so it is not a perfect 5.
With 38 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans orgs, projects, documents, board drawing, membership, and marketplace publishing. While each subdomain is individually reasonable, the aggregate is heavy and likely to overwhelm an agent; several related actions could be grouped or exposed more sparingly.
The set covers the main lifecycle: org/project/document CRUD, board rendering and editing, member management, and template publish/use/update. Minor gaps remain—there is no get_project single-resource read, and groups/links/notes are manipulated only through the generic update_board rather than dedicated tools—but these are workable.