openproject-mcp

Get project

op_get_project

Retrieve project details by providing its numeric id or unique identifier slug.

Instructions

Get a single project by numeric id or identifier slug.

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": {
      "idOrIdentifier": "<idOrIdentifier>"
    },
    "name": "op_get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`idOrIdentifier`	Yes	Project numeric id (e.g. "42") or identifier slug
`raw`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose, omitting any details about authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., when project not found), or side effects.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and efficient, containing no extraneous information.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and incomplete parameter description, the description is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks details on response format, error behavior, and the 'raw' parameter.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (idOrIdentifier is described, raw is not). The tool description does not add any additional meaning for 'raw', leaving its purpose unclear. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single project', and specifies the acceptable identifier types (numeric id or identifier slug). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like op_list_projects (list all) and op_create_project (create).

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 implies usage for fetching a specific project by id or slug, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., op_list_projects for multiple projects) or when not to use it.

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