Get project details.
Args: project_id: Project ID (e.g., PR-123-456-789).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| creator | No | ||
| networks | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the project_id format, and does not contradict annotations. This is adequate given annotation coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of a short purpose statement and a clear argument specification. No filler or redundant content.
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 single-parameter interface, presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly note that it retrieves a single project's full detail set or reference list_projects for multiple projects, but that is a usage guideline rather than a completeness gap.
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 schema has no description for project_id, and the description compensates with an explicit example format ('PR-123-456-789') and labels it as a Project ID. This fully covers the parameter's meaning beyond the bare string type.
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 clearly states 'Get project details' with a project_id parameter, distinguishing it from siblings like list_projects and get_node. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or get_organization. It only states the function, with no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: nodes, projects, docs, pricing, status, org, faucet, and contact. There is no overlap between list/get, create/update/delete, or the doc search vs fetch tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_node, get_project, list_nodes, update_node, delete_project). Underscore separator and lowercase are used throughout with no mixed conventions.
At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the platform's domain. The count is appropriate for a platform with project, node, documentation, pricing, status, and faucet features.
The tool set provides full CRUD for both projects and nodes, plus deployment options, pricing, docs search/retrieval, platform status, organization info, testnet faucet, and a contact channel. There are no obvious dead ends for the workflows the server advertises.
