Get project details and its GitHub connection for PixelFixer by providing team and project IDs.
Get details of a specific project including its GitHub connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | No | Team ID (auto from session if omitted) | |
| projectId | No | Project ID (auto from session if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, error behavior, or side effects. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about the operation's safety profile.
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 wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the unique GitHub connection aspect, making it 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?
Given the low complexity and full schema coverage of parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return value beyond 'details', leaving the agent to guess what fields are included. For a get operation, this is a minor but notable gap.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions indicating they are auto-from-session if omitted, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it stays at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'details of a specific project', and adds a distinguishing feature 'including its GitHub connection'. It differentiates from list_projects (which likely lists projects) by focusing on a single project, but it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or get_task. It does not mention that parameters are optional and auto-filled from session context, nor does it state any conditions for use. The usage context is only implied by the resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.