get_projectFull project record by slug — risks, stage, milestones, contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | L2BEAT slug (e.g. "arbitrum", "optimism", "base") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "slug": "arbitrum"
+ },
+ {
+ "slug": "optimism"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Full project record including risks, stage, milestones, contracts",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive. Description adds the specific fields returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
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?
Single efficiently worded sentence that is front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.
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 retrieval tool with output schema and good annotations, the description is sufficient. Lists key fields, aiding agent understanding. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if slug is invalid.
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 coverage is 100% with a well-described 'slug' parameter. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Clear verb-resource combination: 'get project' with specific fields listed (risks, stage, milestones, contracts). Distinguishes from siblings like list_projects and entity_profile by specifying full record retrieval by slug.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned. Implies use when full project record by slug is needed, but does not guide differentiation from list_projects or entity_profile.
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.