resolve_projectFinds a project by exact name (case-insensitive) or creates it if none matches; or, with project_id, returns that project. Idempotent and free. Use this to follow the one-project-per-folder convention: resolve the folder's name, then pass the returned project_id to other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Project name, 1-100 chars. | |
| project_id | No | Instead of name: fetch this project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / project_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Instead of name: fetch this project.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "name"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior: it is free, matches names case-insensitively, and can create a project if no match exists. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Three short sentences with no waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by idempotency/free status and a concrete usage pattern. Every sentence contributes.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers lookup, creation, parameter alternatives, and intended workflow. It does not describe the return shape in detail, but that is a minor gap given the tool's 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both name and project_id are documented. The description adds relational meaning: they are alternatives ('Instead of name'), and name matching is exact but case-insensitive.
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 precise behavior: find by exact name (case-insensitive), create if absent, or fetch by project_id. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_projects by specifying unique matching/creation semantics.
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?
It gives an explicit usage convention: follow the one-project-per-folder workflow by resolving the folder name and passing the returned project_id onward. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.
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.