simple-support-system-mcp

by bitterdev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Get project

get_project

Read-only

Fetch a single project by its numeric ID to retrieve details for support ticket management on Concrete CMS sites.

Instructions

Read a single project by its numeric id.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	No	Access token of a private project. Only needed without an API key, or for projects behind a private link.
`projectId`	Yes	Numeric project id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered by structured data. The description adds only the key-based lookup nature; it says nothing about authorization behavior, rate limits, or what a failed lookup returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word (verb, resource, scope, lookup key) 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?

For a simple read-one tool with full annotation coverage, a complete schema, and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only shortfall is that it does not spell out the relationship to list_projects or update_project, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including a clear explanation of when the optional 'token' is needed, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'numeric id' merely restates the projectId field and adds no format, range, or token-usage detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('project'), and cardinality ('single') with the lookup key ('numeric id'). This implicitly separates it from list_projects and the create/update/delete_project siblings, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'a single project by its numeric id' implies the fetching-one-by-key use case and thereby rules out browsing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mentioned alternative (e.g. list_projects for discovery), and no prerequisites called out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.