retrieve_companiesRetrieve a single company (workspace) by its id, including name, description and metadata. Only companies the user is a member of are accessible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by stating the returned fields (name, description, metadata) and the membership visibility constraint. It doesn't mention potential 404s or auth errors, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and id. It contains no filler or repeated schema information and every clause earns its place.
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 retrieve-by-id tool, the description covers the resource type, return scope, and access restriction. It lacks explicit alternative guidance and error behavior, but the read-only annotations, single parameter, and absence of output schema make this sufficiently complete.
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?
There is only one parameter, pk, and the schema describes it as 'The id of the company', so the description's 'by its id' adds little new meaning. With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description should compensate for the nested kwargs structure, but it does not explain how to pass the parameter beyond the id concept.
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 the specific verb 'Retrieve', names the exact resource 'company (workspace)', and scopes it by 'id'. It also clarifies the access restriction, distinguishing it from list_companies which returns collections.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to fetch a singular company by id, with the caveat that only member companies are accessible. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the single-vs-list distinction is apparent from sibling tool names.
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 are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.