Skip to main content
Glama

Project summary

project_summary
Read-only

What a project file contains before opening it: which facts are known (yes/no), roles of the companies involved, signal dates, score and price in credits. No names.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "project_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes10 character id from find_projects, new_signals or my_files

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact fields returned (known-facts yes/no, company roles, signal dates, score, credit price) and the privacy constraint 'No names', which sets expectations an agent would otherwise get wrong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the returned content; nothing is wasted. The phrasing 'What a project file contains before opening it' is slightly oblique but immediately clarified by the colon.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return fields, and it does so concisely. What remains missing is a pointer to the related tools (open_file, get_file) that an agent would choose between.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its pattern and where to obtain it. The description adds nothing about the id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description makes clear this is a preview/summary of a project file's contents ('what a project file contains before opening it') and enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from open_file by the 'before opening' framing, though it never names the sibling outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this before open_file to preview a project. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative (open_file, get_file) to route between.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources