get_projectFetch a single video project by ID to retrieve structured project details needed for editing, verification, or rendering.
Fetch one project by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid id, or what identifiers are acceptable.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the minimum needed to invoke is present. However, an agent still lacks id format guidance and any hint of the returned shape or failure mode.
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 0% and the single parameter project_id is bare typed as string. The description only echoes 'by id' without clarifying format (UUID, slug, numeric?) or how to obtain a valid id, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource ('Fetch one project') scoped by 'by id', which implicitly separates it from list_projects and delete_project. It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, but the singular/read nature is clear enough to select it.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus list_projects (which presumably also returns project data) or any prerequisite such as needing an existing project_id. Usage is only inferable from the word 'one' and 'by id'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.