get_projectGet full details for a specific project by its slug, including before/after images and testimonial. If not found, returns a list of available slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The URL slug of the project |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| slug | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| attribution | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety, and the description adds a meaningful non-throwing fallback: 'If not found, returns a list of available slugs.' It also clarifies the contents of the response (before/after images and testimonial), which goes beyond the structured 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?
Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is stated in a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only getter with an output schema and safety annotations, this description is complete. It states the lookup key, the kind of data returned, and the not-found behavior, leaving no critical gap for an agent to make an incorrect call.
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%, and the schema already describes 'slug' as 'The URL slug of the project.' The description repeats the slug concept but adds no new format, constraints, or parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding 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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('full details for a specific project'), and a precise identifier ('by its slug'). The mention of before/after images and testimonial helps distinguish it from narrower siblings like get_project_roi and get_project_testimonials.
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 use when complete project details are needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools or exclusions are named, so an agent gets little routing guidance beyond the tool name.
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 permit-related tools have overlapping boundaries: answer_permit_question, check_permit_requirements, and get_permit_rule_details all return timeline/fee/submittal information and can answer 'do I need a permit' style questions. get_material_catalog and get_material_options also target similar material-selection needs. The descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool in the permit cluster.
All 36 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_ for single-item lookups and list_ for collection queries. There are no camelCase or mixed-style exceptions, so the naming is predictable and scannable.
36 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a multi-domain construction assistant. Several retrieval tools overlap (list_services/list_projects/list_blog_posts vs search_content, get_material_catalog vs get_material_options), suggesting consolidation opportunities.
The permit workflow is well covered from parcel lookup through requirements, fees, submittals, and data freshness, and the prospect journey has services, estimates, financing, weather, reviews, and contact submission. Minor gaps exist, such as no active permit-status lookup and no way to create/update content, but these are outside the apparent read-only/lead-gen scope.