projects_get_projectRetrieve project details such as budget, phases, client, and dates by project ID. Optionally include phase data to support resource planning and time tracking.
Get project details including budget, phases, client, and dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| with_phases | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content scope (budget, phases, client, dates) but says nothing about permissions, cost, or the side effect of with_phases=true.
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 the resource stated first and the payoff fields listed. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than tightly concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the annotations carry the safety story. The gap is the undocumented with_phases parameter, which materially shapes the response and is explained nowhere.
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 description never mentions project_id or with_phases. The word 'phases' hints obliquely at the with_phases toggle, but the agent gets no meaning for the ID format or what disabling phases actually changes.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Get project details') with the returned fields enumerated (budget, phases, client, dates). This clearly distinguishes a single-project fetch from siblings like projects_list_projects or projects_get_project_phase, though it never names an 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?
No statement of when to use this vs projects_list_projects, projects_get_project_phase, or projects_update_project. The required project_id and the with_phases toggle are never tied to a use case, so the agent must infer all routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.