get_projectGet the fuller record for a single World Bank project by its project id (e.g. "P006553", "P501648"): financing breakdown, implementing agency, borrower, sectors, themes, and the project development objective / abstract. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | World Bank project id, e.g. "P006553" or "P501648". Find ids via search_projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "P006553"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "P501648"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Keyless' (no authentication needed) and enumerates the fields returned, which helps set expectations. No contradictions with annotations found.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, provides examples, lists the fields returned, and adds the keyless note. No redundant or filler 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 single-parameter get-by-id tool with strong annotations and no output schema, this description is complete: it specifies inputs, output fields, and safety profile. The tool is simple enough that no more context is needed.
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%: the parameter 'id' is fully described with examples and a pointer to search_projects. The description's mention of 'project id' and examples adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the full record for a single World Bank project by ID, listing specific fields (financing breakdown, agency, borrower, etc.). The verb 'Get' and resource 'World Bank project' are precise, and the examples distinguish it from list/search siblings like search_projects and projects_by_country.
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 implies a workflow: use search_projects to find IDs, then get_project for the fuller record. The schema explicitly says 'Find ids via search_projects,' and the word 'fuller' signals it's for detailed lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes.
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.