Skip to main content
Glama

Get project

get_project
Read-only

Read one project: its name, default time zone, postal address (required before any marketing email goes out) and inbound address.

Tool call template

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesFrom list_projects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation, so the description does not need to explain safety. It adds value by naming returned fields and a business rule about postal address, but it does not discuss error behavior, permissions, or what happens when the project ID is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single well-structured sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and one useful parenthetical constraint. There is no unnecessary wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently identifies the resource and the main fields returned. It could be slightly more complete by noting how project_id is obtained or what happens on invalid IDs, but the schema already covers the parameter source.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter is documented as 'From list_projects.' The description adds no additional meaning about project_id beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read one project', and enumerates key returned fields (name, time zone, postal address, inbound address). It implicitly distinguishes a single-project read from list/create/update/delete siblings, but does not explicitly name an alternative such as list_projects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool. The note that postal address is required before marketing email goes out is useful business context, but it does not help an agent choose between this tool and its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources