Get details of a specific ANUGA project including its scenarios.
Returns the project name, projection (EPSG code), base map ID, and configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The project ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists return fields: 'project name, projection (EPSG code), base map ID, and configuration,' and notes that scenarios are included. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only side-effect-free operation, which adds transparency beyond the schema's single parameter.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states the action and scope, the second enumerates return fields. No wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple (1 parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It adequately covers the core purpose and return content. However, it could briefly note that project_id is required or refer to list_projects for discovery, but that is not essential for completeness given the simplicity.
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 describes project_id as 'The project ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or syntax to the parameter. Since schema description coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the tool's function: 'Get details of a specific ANUGA project including its scenarios.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific ANUGA project'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_projects by specifying a single project and from get_scenario by covering project-level details.
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 implies usage: it is for a specific project (by project_id), not for listing all projects. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear from the wording 'specific project' and the sibling list includes list_projects. No exclusions are necessary for this simple read operation.
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: project listing vs. details, run polling vs. full details, and separate lifecycle operations (start/cancel/retry). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_projects, get_run, start_simulation) with clear verbs. The compound get_run_status is still predictable.
9 tools is a well-scoped size for a domain focused on managing flood simulation runs. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy.
The run lifecycle is complete: start, poll, retrieve results, cancel, retry. Minor gap is the lack of scenario creation or building tools, but the server appears to operate on pre-existing scenarios.
