Skip to main content
Glama

get_project_detail

Retrieve detailed information and all tasks for a specific project in Dida365. Use this tool to access project data by providing the project ID.

Instructions

获取指定项目的详细信息及其所有任务。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes项目ID

Implementation Reference

  • The logic for handling 'get_project_detail' tool requests in the 'dispatch_tool' function.
    elif name == "get_project_detail":
        data = client.get_project_with_tasks(args["project_id"])
        project = data.get("project", data)
        tasks = data.get("tasks", [])
    
        lines = ["📁 项目详情:\n"]
        lines.append("   名称: %s" % project.get("name", "未知"))
        lines.append("   ID: %s" % project.get("id", ""))
        lines.append("\n📝 任务列表(%d 个):\n" % len(tasks))
    
        for task in tasks:
            task["_projectId"] = args["project_id"]
            lines.append(format_task(task))
            lines.append("")
    
        if not tasks:
            lines.append("   (空)")
    
        return "\n".join(lines)
  • The tool definition and input schema for 'get_project_detail'.
    {
        "name": "get_project_detail",
        "description": "获取指定项目的详细信息及其所有任务。",
        "inputSchema": {
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "project_id": {"type": "string", "description": "项目ID"}
            },
            "required": ["project_id"],
        },
    },
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 information ('获取'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese: '获取指定项目的详细信息及其所有任务.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('project_id') clearly documented as '项目ID' (project ID). The description doesn't explain the parameter's role, format, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '获取指定项目的详细信息及其所有任务' (Get detailed information of a specified project and all its tasks). It uses specific verbs ('获取' - get) and resources ('项目详细信息' - project details, '所有任务' - all tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_projects' (which likely lists projects without details/tasks) or 'get_all_tasks' (which likely gets all tasks across projects).

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_projects' (for project lists) or 'get_tasks_by_priority' (for filtered tasks). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context.

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/Martinqi826/dida-mcp'

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