Skip to main content
Glama

get_project_files

Retrieve all design files from a specific Penpot project by providing the project ID to access and manage design assets.

Instructions

Get all files contained within a specific Penpot project.

        Args:
            project_id: The ID of the Penpot project
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'get_project_files'. Calls PenpotAPI.get_project_files(project_id) and returns {'files': files} or error dict.
    @self.mcp.tool()
    def get_project_files(project_id: str) -> dict:
        """Get all files contained within a specific Penpot project.
        
        Args:
            project_id: The ID of the Penpot project
        """
        try:
            files = self.api.get_project_files(project_id)
            return {"files": files}
        except Exception as e:
            return self._handle_api_error(e)
  • Helper method in PenpotAPI class that makes authenticated POST to Penpot's /rpc/command/get-project-files endpoint with project-id payload and returns list of files.
    def get_project_files(self, project_id: str) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]:
        """
        Get all files for a specific project.
    
        Args:
            project_id: The ID of the project
    
        Returns:
            List of file information dictionaries
        """
        url = f"{self.base_url}/rpc/command/get-project-files"
    
        payload = {
            "project-id": project_id
        }
    
        response = self._make_authenticated_request('post', url, json=payload, use_transit=False)
    
        # Parse JSON
        files = response.json()
        return files
  • FastMCP tool registration decorator for the get_project_files handler.
    @self.mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves files but doesn't describe return format (e.g., list structure, file metadata), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one for the purpose and one for the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the formatting includes unnecessary indentation and whitespace, slightly detracting from structure.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'files' means in this context (e.g., file types, metadata), how results are returned, or potential limitations. For a tool that likely returns a list of resources, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it explains that 'project_id' is 'The ID of the Penpot project.' With 0% schema description coverage (schema has no descriptions), this provides basic meaning. However, it doesn't clarify format (e.g., UUID), sourcing, or validation rules. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detail beyond a tautological explanation reduces it to 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all files contained within a specific Penpot project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('files'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_file' (singular) and 'list_projects' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_cached_files' or 'export_object', which could be related operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to siblings like 'get_file' (for a single file) or 'search_object' (for filtered searches). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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/montevive/penpot-mcp'

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