Fetch a project by ID to get its Canvas and Editor documents, with optional asset data included.
Read one project with its Canvas and Editor documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | ||
| includeAssets | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description's 'Read' verb, so no contradiction. The description adds useful context about the return contents (Canvas and Editor documents) beyond the annotation, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error conditions or response structure. With annotation covering safety, the added value is moderate.
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 sentence with no fluff, directly stating the core function. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
Despite the simple tool, the complete absence of parameter documentation and any note about when to use this tool versus siblings leaves gaps. With no output schema and no parameter semantics, an agent may not know how to properly set includeAssets or whether projectId is required. This is incomplete for practical use.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain projectId or includeAssets at all. The schema defines them but the description provides no guidance on their meaning or usage. For a tool with two parameters, this is a significant gap that the description fails to compensate for.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one project'), and the included sub-documents ('Canvas and Editor documents'). This clearly distinguishes it from list, create, and other get tools like bdesign_canvas_get or bdesign_editor_get.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it fetches a project with its documents, but does not mention when one would prefer bdesign_canvas_get or bdesign_editor_get separately, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.