Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bort

bort

by Mobiss11
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bort_project_get

Get a project's complete data set—tasks, expenses, chats, and people—by project ID or exact name (case-insensitive).

Instructions

Проект целиком: задачи, затраты, чаты, люди. Поиск по project_id или точному названию (регистронезависимо)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bort_project_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned data (tasks, costs, chats, people), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it omits read-only status, not-found behavior, or what happens when both name and project_id are omitted.

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?

Two compact sentences, no filler, with the scope of the returned project front-loaded ahead of the lookup mechanics.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the essential work by naming the returned entities and the lookup semantics. It lacks only edge-case behavior (both/neither parameter, not found), which is a modest gap for a two-parameter read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 clarifies that name must be an exact match and that matching is case-insensitive, and pairs it with project_id as the two lookup paths. It doesn't explain precedence if both are supplied, but adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: fetch an entire project including its tasks, costs, chats, and people. Clearly distinguishable from a plain list tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling bort_project_summary, which sounds very close in scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells the agent how to look a project up (by project_id or exact name), which is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus bort_project_list or bort_project_summary, nor any prerequisite or exclusion conditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools