Retrieve detailed information about a specific Yunxiao project using its unique ID and organization ID. Access project metadata to support DevOps management decisions.
[Project Management] Get information about a Yunxiao project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Project unique identifier | |
| organizationId | Yes | Organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.60Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey the behavior on its own. The phrase 'Get project information' communicates a read operation, but it adds no details about permissions, required organization context, response shape, or whether this returns full project details or only a subset. It is adequate, not rich.
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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and immediately understandable.
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?
The tool is a simple retrieval operation with only two required parameters, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on differentiating it from search_projects and does not hint at the expected return payload, so a few minor context gaps remain.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, placing it at the baseline for a fully documented 2-parameter tool.
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 states the tool retrieves information about a single Yunxiao project. It uses a specific verb+resource construction and is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish single-object retrieval from the sibling search_projects tool.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_projects. The description gives no context about the intended workflow or prerequisites, so an agent gets no help deciding between fetching by ID and searching for projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.