Retrieve a BotDigit project's details and specifications by UUID, giving AI agents the context needed for workspace and delivery tasks.
Fetch complete details and specifications for a single BotDigit project by UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The UUID of the project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' reasonably conveys a read-only, non-destructive lookup, and 'complete details and specifications' hints at the return breadth, but it says nothing about permissions, not-found behavior, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence carrying verb, resource, scope, and identifier key with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the most important information leads.
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 simple one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but 'complete details and specifications' remains vague about what fields actually come back, and it omits error behavior for an invalid or missing UUID.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described there, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the identifier type ('by UUID') without adding format, sourcing, or lookup-semantics detail 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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('BotDigit project'), scope ('single', 'by UUID'), and the return breadth ('complete details and specifications'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling botdigit_list_projects by being singular, though it never names that alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup-by-id complement to botdigit_list_projects, but the description neither states when to reach for it nor excludes list-style scenarios or names the alternative. No prerequisites or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.