Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

project_inspect

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a project's record, immutable artifacts, and jobs in read-only mode to review project status and contents; inspect individual artifact content separately.

Instructions

One project: its record, every immutable artifact (id, revision, kind) and its jobs. Read-only; use artifact_inspect for one artifact's content.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "project_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesTool arguments object (all fields documented; Z is positive upward).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so restating 'Read-only' adds little. The real value is disclosing the response shape — record, artifact tuples (id, revision, kind), and jobs — which is important given there is no output schema. No detail is given on size limits or pagination for projects with many artifacts.

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, zero filler, with the resource and payload front-loaded before the alternative-tool pointer. Every clause carries information.

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, the description correctly spends its words on what is returned, and the nested request object is fully documented in the schema. Minor gaps remain: the nature of 'jobs' (status only vs. full records) and any behavior for large projects is left unstated.

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?

There is a single nested parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already documents project_id with its format ('project-…') and its origin (project_create/project_list). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 names the resource ('One project') and enumerates exactly what comes back: the project record, every immutable artifact with id/revision/kind, and its jobs. It also contrasts itself with artifact_inspect, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema. The only shortfall is the absence of an explicit verb, which is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Read-only; use artifact_inspect for one artifact's content' explicitly routes the agent to the sibling when only a single artifact's content is wanted. That is a genuine when-to-use-this-instead signal. It does not, however, address when to prefer project_list or job_status over this tool, so the routing is only partial.

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