get_projectReads a project, its members, their roles and their spending limits.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"project_id": "<project_id>"
},
"name": "get_project"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the payload shape — that the response aggregates the project with its members, roles and spending limits — which is non-obvious for a single-parameter read.
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 no filler, and it gets to the payload description immediately. It is arguably too terse given the missing parameter guidance, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does carry the return-value information, which is the main burden. However, the absence of any project_id semantics and the mismatch between the title 'Open a project' and the actual read behavior leave meaningful gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about project_id: not its format, where to obtain it, or whether it accepts a slug or an opaque ID. With one undocumented parameter the description should compensate and does not.
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 gives a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('a project') and extends the scope to members, roles and spending limits, which distinguishes it from create_project and update_project. It stops short of naming the sibling list tools it differs from, so a 4 rather than 5.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_projects (for enumeration) or list_project_members (for members only), and no prerequisites. The agent has to infer that a known project_id is required before calling.
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.