get_projectProject description, team, sections, funders, item counts by type, top subjects and ten sample research items, with citation links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Project Omeka id (e.g. 37700) or typed id project:37700 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "maxLength": 256,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Project Omeka o:id, e.g. 37700"New value: +"Project Omeka id (e.g. 37700) or typed id project:37700"Input schema / properties / id / typeRemoved value: -[
- "string",
- "number"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing the sampling behavior ('ten sample research items') and the presence of citation links, which the annotations cannot express. However, it omits any note on permission scope or truncation of the sample.
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 efficient sentence-fragment with no filler; every listed field earns its place. It is front-loaded with the resource and the most important content, though the absence of a leading verb slightly weakens the opening.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information, and it does so reasonably well by enumerating the payload components (team, sections, funders, item counts, subjects, sample items). For a read-only single-resource detail endpoint with a fully documented parameter and complete annotations, this is close to sufficient; a routing note versus siblings is the only real gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the Omeka numeric form and the typed 'project:37700' form. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is correct.
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 is a noun-phrase inventory of payload contents ('Project description, team, sections, funders, item counts...') rather than a verb+resource statement. An agent can infer it fetches a project's details, but it never explicitly says 'retrieve a project' and offers no differentiation from siblings like get_collection_overview or search_projects.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite mention, and no indication of how this differs from search_projects or search_research_items. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the field list.
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.