Get the public client portal representation for a project
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": {
"projectId": "<projectId>"
},
"name": "getClientView"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Public ... representation' hints that this returns an externally-facing, read-only view, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, whether the portal must be enabled/published, or what happens if it isn't — all material for a tool whose output is exposed publicly.
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; the resource is identified immediately. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than merely tight.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter leave the description to cover a lot, yet it omits what the representation contains, what access it implies, and how failures are surfaced. For a tool returning a client-facing view, that is a meaningful 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (projectId) is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'for a project' only loosely maps to it and adds no format, ID-type, or lookup guidance beyond the parameter name itself.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('public client portal representation for a project'), which is clearly distinct from sibling list/create/upload tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling (readClientLink), so it stops short of a 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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as readClientLink or listProjects, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.
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.