openproject-mcp

Get work package

op_get_work_package

Get a work package by numeric ID, returning its complete HAL representation with all available details.

Instructions

Fetch a single work package by numeric id with full HAL detail.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "op_get_work_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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. It states 'fetch' suggesting a read operation, but does not confirm safety, disclose if the operation has side effects, or mention prerequisites like permissions. The phrase 'full HAL detail' lacks elaboration on response format or pagination.

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 with 12 words, front-loading the core action and parameter. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 2 parameters (one required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value shape, possible error conditions, or the effect of the `raw` parameter. An agent lacks enough context to use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain all parameters. It mentions 'by numeric id' for the `id` parameter, but omits any explanation of the `raw` boolean parameter. The description adds partial meaning but leaves a parameter undocumented.

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 'Fetch a single work package by numeric id with full HAL detail' clearly specifies the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'single work package', and a key parameter 'numeric id'. It distinguishes from siblings like `op_list_work_packages` (which lists multiple) and `op_delete_work_package` (which deletes).

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 one work package by id but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like `op_list_work_packages` for multiple items or other `get_*` tools. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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