Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

honeybook-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_project

Read-only

Get a project's overview and participants from the HoneyBook portal: date, time, location, guest count, custom fields, contact roles. Compact returns essentials; raw returns full vendor account data.

Instructions

Project details — the portal's Overview "Project details" card plus the people on it: name, date, time, timezone, location, guest count, custom fields, cover image, and each participant's name / email / phone / role. view="raw" returns the untrimmed response (large: it embeds the vendor's account).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "raw" returns the upstream payload unprojected. compact returns the Overview card plus participants; "raw" returns the untrimmed /details response, which embeds the vendor's whole account.
originNoPortal origin (e.g. https://<vendor>.hbportal.co). Optional when only one session is active.
project_idYesThe project (event) _id from list_projects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / section
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Default \"summary\".",
-  "enum": [
-    "summary",
-    "raw"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"raw\" returns the upstream payload unprojected. compact returns the Overview card plus participants; \"raw\" returns the untrimmed /details response, which embeds the vendor's whole account.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "raw"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description warns that view='raw' returns a large untrimmed response embedding the vendor's account, and that compact drops fields. This is useful behavioral context for an agent deciding between views.

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 sentences with no filler; purpose is front-loaded, and the raw-view caveat is placed second. The field list is long but each entry is concrete and relevant.

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 read-only getter with all parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the two view shapes. Minor gaps like origin resolution are already handled by the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a minor extra warning that raw is large; it doesn't materially improve on the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

Description clearly identifies the resource: the portal's Overview 'Project details' card plus participants, enumerating fields. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_projects or get_flow, but the resource is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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?

Purpose implies use when project details are needed, and the view parameter gives shape options. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention that project_id should come from list_projects (only the schema says this).

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