huly-mcp-selfhost

get_project

Read-only

Retrieve a project by its key to view its name, description, issue count, and statuses, giving quick context before planning or reporting on work.

Instructions

Project by key (e.g. "PROJ"): name, description, issue count, statuses

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspace`	No
`identifier`	Yes	Project key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about behavior when the key is invalid or about how the workspace scopes the lookup, so it goes beyond annotations only modestly.

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?

A single tight fragment with no filler, and the key-lookup constraint is front-loaded ahead of the field list. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is a helpful substitute for return documentation. However, the unexplained workspace parameter and the absence of any note on unknown-key behavior leave it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 50%: 'identifier' is documented as 'Project key' and the description adds a concrete format example ('PROJ'), which is a genuine increment. The 'workspace' parameter is undocumented in both places, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The fragment 'Project by key' identifies the resource and the lookup key, and the trailing field list ('name, description, issue count, statuses') hints at what comes back. But it omits an explicit verb (fetch/retrieve) and offers no differentiation from siblings like find_project_for_repo or project_report, leaving the agent to infer this is a direct key lookup.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus any alternative, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The 'by key (e.g. "PROJ")' example implies you must already know the key rather than a name or repo, which is the only implicit guidance present.

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

Deploy Server