get_project_topologyRetrieve a project's topology: its components, the technologies each uses, and their dependencies, so you can map how parts connect before planning changes.
The project's topology in Ontop form: components, the technologies they use (Technology Tree ids) and how they depend on each other.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The project id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about what topology includes, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond the conceptual contents.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to explaining the topology's contents.
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 one fully described parameter and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough conceptual detail about what the topology returns. The lack of an output schema means exact shape is not specified, but the key contents are named.
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 single required parameter projectId is fully documented in the schema, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add further meaning beyond what is in the schema, which is acceptable given 100% 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 identifies the resource as the project's topology and enumerates its contents: components, technologies, and dependencies. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic project retrieval, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_project_context or get_technology.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project, get_project_context, get_technology, or search_tree. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description, with no exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.