get_projectFull metadata for one project: machine-written description, design language, details and dimensions, plus the public URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Project slug, e.g. 'audeum-kengo-kuma'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 value by enumerating what the metadata includes (machine-written description, design language, details/dimensions, public URL), which is useful context beyond the schema. No contradictions with 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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with specific metadata fields. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly lists the return contents, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by this enumeration, making the tool fully understandable.
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 input schema fully describes the sole parameter 'slug' with an example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond implying the slug identifies the project, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Full metadata for one project', clearly indicating a retrieval operation for a single project. It distinguishes from siblings like search_projects and similar_projects by emphasizing 'one project' and enumerating the metadata contents.
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 phrase 'Full metadata for one project' implies use when a single project's complete metadata is needed, likely by slug. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary cases, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Several tools overlap significantly: search, search_projects, and browse all return project lists, and fetch and get_project both retrieve project details. An agent would struggle to choose the right tool without deep familiarity.
Tool names mix single verbs (browse, discover, fetch, search) with verb_noun compounds (get_api_key, get_project, list_guides, search_projects) and a few irregular forms (search_by_taste, similar_projects). No consistent pattern emerges.
With 10 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for an archive server. However, the presence of redundant tools (three search variants) suggests the set could be trimmed without losing capability.
The server covers core read-only archive workflows: browsing, searching, retrieving details, listing guides, finding similar projects, and API key provisioning. Minor gaps like pagination or category listing are not critical for the apparent purpose.