Retrieve detailed information for a single project using its slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI reference.
Get details for one project by slug, owner/slug, or project ul:// URI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project ref by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.12Input schema / properties / project / descriptionPrevious value: -"Project ref by id, slug, username/slug, or ul:// URI."New value: +"Project ref by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI."v0.1.6Input schema / properties / project / descriptionAdded value: +"Project ref by id, slug, username/slug, or ul:// URI."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral details such as response shape, error behavior, or authorization requirements, but for a simple read operation the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. The main gap is that 'details' is fairly vague and there is no output schema, though that is a minor concern for a simple getter.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter description already lists slug, owner/slug, and ul:// URI formats. The tool description essentially restates the same information, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Get details') and a specific resource ('one project'), and it names the three accepted reference formats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like projects_list, which would return multiple projects.
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?
The description makes it clear this is for retrieving a single project by an identifier, which gives an agent clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intent is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.