Retrieve detailed information about a Jira Cloud project using its project key. Check project metadata before managing issues, sprints, or releases.
Get detailed information about a project.
Args: project_key: Project key (e.g., "KAN")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or error behavior; only the presence of an output schema keeps this from being a total gap.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence. The 'Args:' block is slightly verbose for a single parameter but is harmless and not padded.
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?
A simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema already defining return values, so the description is close to sufficient. The main missing piece is usage context versus the many sibling tools.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the parameter and supplies a concrete example format ("KAN"). It does not clarify key-vs-id-vs-name alternatives, but the added meaning is real.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (project) with scope 'detailed information'. Sibling get_projects (plural) exists, and the singular form implies single-project retrieval, but the description never explicitly distinguishes the two.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is for fetching one project versus get_projects for listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.