Skip to main content
Glama

Open project

open_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

[read] Start working on a project: its timeline (tracks, clips and their ids). Its board, where scenes, images and video are generated, is the same project: read it with get_video_assets_state. The project's chat in AskEditor shows that you are working on it. Call it first, and again to re-read the timeline after changes.

Tool call template

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": "open_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe AskEditor project (from list_projects).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context: what the project timeline contains, that the board is read separately, that AskEditor chat shows active work, and that re-reading is expected after changes.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the [read] marker and states the core behavior immediately. Every sentence adds useful routing or re-read context without waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully specifies that the return is the timeline with tracks, clips, and IDs. It is mostly complete for invocation, though it could better position this tool against read_project and get_timeline.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains project_id and its source from list_projects. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what is structured.

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 clearly states the tool starts work on a project and returns its timeline with tracks, clips, and IDs. It also distinguishes the board as a separate read via get_video_assets_state, but it does not clarify how this differs from sibling tools like read_project or get_timeline.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says to call this first and again after changes to re-read the timeline, and it names get_video_assets_state for reading the board. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with read_project/get_timeline.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources