Fetch all sections in a given Asana project using its unique project ID.
Get sections in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| opt_fields | No | Comma-separated list of optional fields to include | |
| project_id | Yes | The project ID to get sections for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get sections in a project' and does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or any pagination or limitations. This adds little beyond the tool's name.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key information. There is no filler or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.
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 read operation with complete parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it would benefit from stating the return type (e.g., 'list of sections') or any relevant caveats. It is not incomplete but leaves some ambiguities.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the action ('Get') and the resource ('sections in a project'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_get_project and asana_get_project_status. However, it is a minimal restatement and does not explicitly elaborate on scope or differentiate further.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and there is no reference to sibling tools or alternative approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.