Fetch full project details: title, slug, status, description, icon, tags, repository info, sourceRef ({type,url,ref} for remote-research or null), goals breakdown by status (backlog/in_progress/blocked/done/cancelled counts), and depends_on list of project dependencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | UUID проекта |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given the readOnlyHint annotation, the bar is lower. The description adds valuable detail on the return structure (e.g., sourceRef can be null, goals breakdown by status counts), which goes beyond the annotation's basic safety signal.
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 a single, information-dense sentence. The lead phrase 'Fetch full project details' immediately conveys the action, and the subsequent enumeration is compact without 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?
There is no output schema, so the description bears the full burden of explaining return values. It comprehensively lists all major fields (title, slug, status, description, icon, tags, repository info, sourceRef, goals breakdown, depends_on), making the tool's behavior fully predictable for a get operation.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (projectId), and the schema already provides a description. The tool description does not add further semantic nuance, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full project details'), enumerating the exact fields returned (title, slug, status, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like project-list or project-update.
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 when needing a single project's complete details, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like project-list. It gives clear context but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
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.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes (goal-create vs goal-update vs goal-delete), but the evidence-related tools (goal-add-evidence-text, goal-attach-evidence, goal-request-upload) and note tools (goal-add-note) have overlapping concepts that require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. Overall, the detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity, but a few tools could be easily confused.
The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a resource prefix (goal-create, goal-get, project-list, project-update). However, there are deviations like account-delete (noun-verb reversed), goal-todo, goal-summary, goal-tree, and goal-recent-unresolved that break the pattern. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
With 38 tools, this server has a very large surface area. Even for a complex planner with evidence management, the number exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Many tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., goal-add-note and goal-add-evidence-text), and the size may overwhelm agents during tool selection.
The tool set provides complete coverage of the domain: full goal lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, list, tree, move, reorder, block), evidence management (attach, request upload, text evidence, remove), acceptance criteria (add, update, remove, request change, resolve escalation), assumptions (add, update, remove, suggest, attach evidence), blockers, notes, project management (CRUD, dependencies), and configuration settings. No critical gaps are apparent.