Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
alga-psa-mcp

alga-psa-mcp

Official
by WYRE-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

alga_projects_get

Read-only

Fetch complete details for one project by ID to inspect it after finding it in a list or search.

Instructions

Get one project by ID. Use after a list or search to see full details.

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": "alga_projects_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the response contains 'full details,' without saying what fields that includes or how it differs from the list view's projection. Adequate but thin beyond structured data.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the usage cue. No redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

A single-parameter read with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema; what the agent needs to call it correctly is present. The only shortfall is that 'full details' is left unelaborated, so the agent can't anticipate the response shape.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and only partly does so: it tells the agent the identifier is a project ID obtainable from a prior list or search, but not the expected format, though the schema's pattern and length constraints partially cover that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one project by ID') and makes the single-record scope explicit, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list/search tools. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

'Use after a list or search to see full details' gives clear sequencing guidance: call this once an ID is known rather than as a discovery entry point. It doesn't name the alternative tools or state when-not to use it, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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