projects_get_project_phaseRetrieve details for a specific project phase by providing project and phase IDs. Use it for project tracking in Smartsheet Resource Management.
Get details for a specific project phase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on what a missing phase returns, whether the lookup is scoped to the given project, or any access constraints.
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 tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting information the agent would find useful rather than by careful editing.
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 values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is identifier semantics for two undocumented required params, which the description does nothing to close.
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 both parameters are required, yet the description says nothing about project_id or phase_id. Notably, both accept integer OR string, and the description does not clarify the accepted identifier forms or that phase_id must belong to project_id.
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?
The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project phase'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings such as projects_get_project or projects_list_project_phases, so the agent must rely on the tool name alone to route correctly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools that could be used instead (e.g., listing phases vs. fetching one). The agent is left to infer that this is a single-resource lookup from the name only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.