Skip to main content
Glama
dev-in-black

OpenProject MCP Server

by dev-in-black
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

get_project

Retrieve detailed project information from OpenProject by providing a project identifier to access specifications, status, and configuration data.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a project.

Args:
    project_id: Project identifier or ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/openproject_mcp/server.py:261-269 (handler)
    MCP tool handler for 'get_project', registered via @mcp.tool(), delegates to projects.get_project implementation.
    @mcp.tool()
async def get_project(project_id: str):
    """Get detailed information about a project.

    Args:
        project_id: Project identifier or ID
    """
    return await projects.get_project(project_id=project_id)
  • src/openproject_mcp/tools/projects.py:9-24 (helper)
    Core helper function implementing the logic to fetch project details using OpenProjectClient and API call.
    async def get_project(project_id: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
    """Get detailed information about a project.

    Args:
        project_id: Project identifier or ID

    Returns:
        Project object with all properties, links, and embedded resources
    """
    client = OpenProjectClient()

    try:
        result = await client.get(f"projects/{project_id}")
        return result
    finally:
        await client.close()

Tool Definition Quality

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with every sentence adding value. The structure is clear and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but misses behavioral details like return values or error conditions. For a read operation, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'project_id' by explaining it as a 'Project identifier or ID', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic 'string' type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., numeric vs. string IDs).

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a project', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_projects' (which lists multiple projects) and 'update_project' (which modifies projects). However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'get_project' over 'list_projects' for viewing project data, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a project ID. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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/dev-in-black/openproject-mcp'

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