Skip to main content
Glama

Get project

get_project
Read-only

Get one project by UUID: name, slug, identifier, engine, workspace_uuid.

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesThe UUID of the project to get

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
slugNo
uuidNo
engineNonext
created_atNo
deleted_atYes
deleted_byNo
identifierYes
updated_atNo
updated_byNo
descriptionNo
figma_file_idNo
figma_team_idNo
workspace_uuidNo
design_instructionsNo
source_template_uuidNo
source_template_version_uuidNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered without description help. The description adds the set of returned fields, which is mild extra context, but says nothing about behavior on a missing UUID (error vs. empty), permissions, or scoping.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One short, front-loaded sentence with the key constraint (by UUID) first and the return fields after. No filler, no redundancy in phrasing.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, this is nearly complete. The field list is arguably redundant given the output schema, and the absence of any sibling routing or not-found behavior is the only remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single uuid parameter is fully documented with a format and example, so the schema carries the load. 'By UUID' in the description confirms the lookup key but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one project by UUID') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what is being fetched. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_project_style or get_selection, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the sibling tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the general project lookup rather than the style-specific sibling.

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