portfolio_get_projectOne project by id: the problem it solves, the outcome, the long description (markdown, with relevant links — live site, GitHub where open source) and the list of technical details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id from portfolio_list_projects, e.g. "digital-compass" | |
| lang | No | Content language (all content exists in both en and ro) | en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description does not add any new behavioral information beyond what annotations provide, such as authentication needs or data freshness.
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?
A single sentence packs the purpose and key details, front-loaded with 'One project by id'. No unnecessary words, earning its place in the tool definition.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently outlines the return content (problem, outcome, long description, tech details). It nearly fully describes what the agent can expect.
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 description adds practical meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the id should come from the list endpoint and confirming that the lang parameter controls bilingual content. This helps the agent understand how to correctly invoke the tool.
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 returns 'Full details of one project' and enumerates the specific fields included (problem, outcome, long description, tech details). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools that return summaries and other get tools for 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 specifies that the id parameter comes from 'portfolio_list_projects', guiding the agent to use the list tool first to obtain the id. It implies the tool is for detailed retrieval of a single project, providing clear 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.
Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: listing vs. getting details for blog posts and projects, retrieving the profile, and performing a cross-domain search. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent portfolio_<verb>_<noun> pattern (e.g., portfolio_get_blog_post, portfolio_list_projects), using standard verbs and plural/singular nouns appropriately.
With 6 tools covering portfolio, blog posts, projects, and search, the set is well-scoped for a personal portfolio site—neither too few nor excessive.
The tool surface provides complete read-only access to all major parts of the portfolio: profile, blog posts (list+detail), projects (list+detail), and a full-text search. No obvious gaps exist for the intended use case.