Skip to main content
Glama

OpenPanel: Get project

openpanel_get_project
Read-only

Fetch project details from the Manage API by supplying the site and project ID; requires a root-mode client.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get project details via Manage API. Requires 'root' mode client.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "openpanel_get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious auth constraint that a root-mode client is required, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. Beyond that it says nothing about return shape, error behavior for a missing project_id, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with the operation stated first and the prerequisite second; nothing is padded. The "[UNIFIED]" tag is unexplained jargon that consumes the opening without adding meaning.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with no output schema, the definition covers the action and a key prerequisite, which is close to sufficient. It is incomplete in that neither parameter is described and the agent gets no hint of what fields a project detail response contains.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for the two required parameters (site, project_id) and says nothing about either. It does not clarify whether project_id is numeric or a slug, or what 'site' refers to in the OpenPanel API.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Get project details") and scopes it to the Manage API, so an agent knows this is a read of a single project object. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from same-purpose siblings such as openpanel_get_client or the other project getters, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 clause "Requires 'root' mode client" is a real precondition that tells the agent when this call is viable. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over siblings, no mention of what to do if the client is not in root mode, and no exclusions.

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