get_projectFetch a funded research project by OpenAIRE ID — use after search_projects for full project details (budget breakdown, partner list, outputs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | OpenAIRE id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "ec_fp7__::346061"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "A single project object",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (budget breakdown, partner list, outputs), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 one sentence, around 20 words, and efficiently conveys the purpose and usage context. It is front-loaded with the core action and identifier, with no extraneous information.
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 has one parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description adds enough context about what additional details are provided. It is complete for this simple fetch operation.
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% for the single parameter 'id', with description 'OpenAIRE id'. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('funded research project'), and the identifier ('by OpenAIRE ID'). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'use after search_projects', which differentiates it from other tools.
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 explicitly says 'use after search_projects for full project details', providing clear context on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.
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.