Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIR MCP Server

AIR MCP Server

by VericyIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get project

air_get_project
Read-only

Resolve an AIR project by pid from air_list_projects, or by orgSlug, domainSlug, and projectSlug to retrieve project details for risk assessments.

Instructions

Resolve a project by pid from air_list_projects, or by orgSlug + domainSlug + projectSlug.

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": "air_get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgSlugNo
domainSlugNo
projectPidNoProject pid from air_list_projects
projectSlugNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the resolution semantics (alternative composite key), but says nothing about not-found/error behavior or return shape.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary resolution path and the alternative, with zero filler.

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 output schema and 0 required parameters, the description supplies the key information an agent needs: where the pid comes from and the composite-key alternative. It stops short of stating requiredness rules, which is the main residual gap.

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 coverage is only 25% (only projectPid documented), so the description must compensate. It does: it links pid to air_list_projects and explains that orgSlug + domainSlug + projectSlug form an alternate lookup path, giving meaning to three otherwise-bare parameters. It doesn't clarify whether the slug trio can be partially supplied.

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 (resolve) and resource (project), and distinguishes the two lookup modes. It names air_list_projects as the pid source, tying it to a sibling, though it doesn't contrast against other get_* siblings like air_get_domain.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains the two ways to invoke it and implicitly the prerequisite (obtain pid via air_list_projects). No explicit when-not-use or ordering guidance beyond that, but the calling context is clear.

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