get_projectOne project with its description, registered mount slots, and assetSuggestions — premade AI prompt ideas per entity type (character + the 6 asset types), tailored to the project's vision. Use them as ready-made prompts when creating characters/assets. May be null right after create (generated asynchronously — re-fetch to read).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing the asynchronous generation after project creation, that the tool may return null, and that a re-fetch is needed. It also reveals the exact content payload (description, mount slots, assetSuggestions) which is not visible in the schema.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey the return value, the special assetSuggestions feature, and the async null case. No filler or redundancy; it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives actionable usage detail.
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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description fully explains the output shape, the async edge case, and how to use the returned assetSuggestions. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by clearly listing the returned fields and the null behavior.
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 only parameter, projectId, is fully documented in the schema with 'Project id.' providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score 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 this returns a single project with specific fields (description, mount slots, assetSuggestions), using the verb 'get' implicitly via the tool name. It differentiates from sibling getters like get_asset and get_character by focusing on project-level data, and from list_projects by returning one project.
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 you need a project's full details, and explicitly mentions re-fetching after creation because the result may be null asynchronously. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_projects or contrast with other getters, but the context is clear enough for most cases.
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 clearly distinct purposes, and the descriptions are extremely detailed with cross-references (e.g., animate_asset vs frame_animation vs generate_character_animation). A few pairs like reprocess_asset vs revise_asset could be confused initially, but their descriptions and use cases are explicit enough to prevent misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_project, get_asset, cancel_job). Verbs are imperative and nouns are appropriately singular/plural, making the API predictable and readable.
At 41 tools, the server is far beyond the 15-25 range considered reasonable for most APIs. While the domain is broad (project, assets, characters, animations, jobs, exports, credits), the sheer number creates a heavy surface that may overwhelm agents and suggests the API could be consolidated into higher-level operations.
The tool set covers the full creative pipeline: project creation, asset/character generation, animation (both AI and frame-based), revisions, exports, and job management. Minor gaps include lack of delete operations for assets/characters/projects and no listing of all jobs, but these are not critical for the core workflow and are likely intentional for a generative art platform.