get_projectGet detailed information about a project, including its environments. Requires organization context (call set_context first). If no projectId is given, uses the active project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | Public ID (GUID) of the project. If omitted, uses the active project context. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond the annotation, only mentioning that it returns detailed information including environments. No side effects or error conditions are described, but none are expected for a read-only getter.
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 compact—two sentences—and front-loads the main purpose. It avoids extraneous details and is easy to parse quickly.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives all necessary context: what it returns (project info and environments), the prerequisite, and fallback behavior. Nothing essential is missing.
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 single parameter projectId is fully documented in the schema, including type, default, and meaning. The description reinforces the optional semantics and the active-project fallback, providing complete understanding of the parameter's role.
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 the tool retrieves detailed project information, including environments. It uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('project'), and distinguishes itself from the many other get_* tools that target different resources.
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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires organization context (call set_context first)') and explains the fallback behavior when projectId is omitted. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, but offers sufficient context for when to use it.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.