Skip to main content
Glama

project_info

Retrieve detailed information about a specific Railway project, including project status, environments, services, and configuration settings.

Instructions

[API] Get detailed information about a specific Railway project

⚡️ Best for: ✓ Viewing project details and status ✓ Checking environments and services ✓ Project configuration review

→ Prerequisites: project_list

→ Next steps: service_list, variable_list

→ Related: project_update, project_delete

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesID of the project to get information about

Implementation Reference

  • The project_info tool is registered here via createTool, including its description, input schema, and handler function.
    createTool(
      "project_info",
      formatToolDescription({
        type: 'API',
        description: "Get detailed information about a specific Railway project",
        bestFor: [
          "Viewing project details and status",
          "Checking environments and services",
          "Project configuration review"
        ],
        relations: {
          prerequisites: ["project_list"],
          nextSteps: ["service_list", "variable_list"],
          related: ["project_update", "project_delete"]
        }
      }),
      {
        projectId: z.string().describe("ID of the project to get information about")
      },
      async ({ projectId }) => {
        return projectService.getProject(projectId);
      }
    ),
  • The core handler logic for retrieving and formatting project information, called by the tool handler.
      async getProject(projectId: string): Promise<CallToolResult> {
        try {
          const project = await this.client.projects.getProject(projectId);
    
          if (!project) {
            return createErrorResponse("Project not found.");
          }
    
          const environments = project.environments?.edges?.map(edge => edge.node) || [];
          const services = project.services?.edges?.map(edge => edge.node) || [];
    
          const environmentList = environments.map(env => 
            `  🌍 ${env.name} (ID: ${env.id})`
          ).join('\n');
    
          const serviceList = services.map(svc =>
            `  🚀 ${svc.name} (ID: ${svc.id})`
          ).join('\n');
    
          const info = `📁 Project: ${project.name} (ID: ${project.id})
    Description: ${project.description || 'No description'}
    Created: ${new Date(project.createdAt).toLocaleString()}
    Subscription: ${project.subscriptionType || 'Free'}
    
    Environments:
    ${environmentList || '  No environments'}
    
    Services:
    ${serviceList || '  No services'}`;
    
          return createSuccessResponse({
            text: info,
            data: { project, environments, services }
          });
        } catch (error) {
          return createErrorResponse(`Error getting project details: ${formatError(error)}`);
        }
      }
  • Zod input schema defining the required projectId parameter for the project_info tool.
    {
      projectId: z.string().describe("ID of the project to get information about")
    },
  • The projectTools (including project_info) are spread into allTools and registered with the MCP server via server.tool().
    allTools.forEach((tool) => {
      server.tool(
        ...tool
      );
    });
  • Singleton instance of ProjectService exported for use by tool handlers.
    export const projectService = new ProjectService();
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't explicitly mention safety, permissions, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some context about prerequisites and related tools, but lacks detailed behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related). Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance without redundancy. The use of symbols (⚡️, ✓, →) enhances readability without adding fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering purpose, usage, and relationships. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or response structure, which would be helpful for a tool with no structured output documentation. The completeness is strong but not perfect.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the single parameter (projectId). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline for high coverage is 3, but the description compensates by providing excellent usage context, warranting a slightly higher score.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Railway project'), distinguishing it from siblings like project_list (which lists projects) and project_update/project_delete (which modify projects). The title is null, so the description fully defines the tool's purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance with 'Best for' examples (viewing details, checking environments, configuration review), prerequisites ('project_list'), next steps ('service_list, variable_list'), and related tools ('project_update, project_delete'). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/epitaphe360/railway-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server