Skip to main content
Glama
cristip73

MCP Server for Asana

by cristip73

asana_get_project_sections

Retrieve sections from an Asana project to organize tasks and track workflow progress. Specify a project ID to get structured task lists.

Instructions

Get sections in a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe project ID to get sections for
opt_fieldsNoComma-separated list of optional fields to include

Implementation Reference

  • The primary MCP tool handler case that processes the tool call, destructures arguments, invokes the Asana client method, and formats the response.
    case "asana_get_project_sections": {
      const { project_id, ...opts } = args;
      const response = await asanaClient.getProjectSections(project_id, opts);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }],
      };
    }
  • Defines the tool's metadata including name, description, and input schema for validation.
    export const getProjectSectionsTool: Tool = {
      name: "asana_get_project_sections",
      description: "Get sections in a project",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          project_id: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The project ID to get sections for"
          },
          opt_fields: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Comma-separated list of optional fields to include"
          }
        },
        required: ["project_id"]
      }
    };
  • Registers the getProjectSectionsTool in the list_of_tools array exported for MCP server tool listing.
    export const tools: Tool[] = [
      listWorkspacesTool,
      searchProjectsTool,
      getProjectTool,
      getProjectTaskCountsTool,
      getProjectSectionsTool,
      createSectionForProjectTool,
      createProjectForWorkspaceTool,
      updateProjectTool,
      reorderSectionsTool,
      getProjectStatusTool,
      getProjectStatusesForProjectTool,
      createProjectStatusTool,
      deleteProjectStatusTool,
      searchTasksTool,
      getTaskTool,
      createTaskTool,
      updateTaskTool,
      createSubtaskTool,
      getMultipleTasksByGidTool,
      addTaskToSectionTool,
      getTasksForSectionTool,
      getProjectHierarchyTool,
      getSubtasksForTaskTool,
      getTasksForProjectTool,
      getTasksForTagTool,
      getTagsForWorkspaceTool,
      addTagsToTaskTool,
      addTaskDependenciesTool,
      addTaskDependentsTool,
      setParentForTaskTool,
      addFollowersToTaskTool,
      getStoriesForTaskTool,
      createTaskStoryTool,
      getTeamsForUserTool,
      getTeamsForWorkspaceTool,
      addMembersForProjectTool,
      addFollowersForProjectTool,
      getUsersForWorkspaceTool,
      getAttachmentsForObjectTool,
      uploadAttachmentForObjectTool,
      downloadAttachmentTool
    ];
  • Core helper method in AsanaClientWrapper that performs the actual Asana API call to retrieve project sections.
    async getProjectSections(projectId: string, opts: any = {}) {
      // Only include opts if opt_fields was actually provided
      const options = opts.opt_fields ? opts : {};
      const sections = new Asana.SectionsApi();
      const response = await sections.getSectionsForProject(projectId, options);
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get sections' but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns paginated results, or the format of the output. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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?

The description 'Get sections in a project' is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without any structural waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), output format, and usage context. Given the complexity of interacting with a project management API and the absence of structured data, the description should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('project_id' and 'opt_fields'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples for 'opt_fields' or constraints on 'project_id'. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get sections in a project' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('sections in a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'sections' are (e.g., task sections, project phases) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'asana_get_tasks_for_section' or 'asana_reorder_sections', leaving room for ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'asana_get_project' or 'asana_get_tasks_for_section', leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cristip73/mcp-server-asana'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server