Skip to main content
Glama
dev-in-black

OpenProject MCP Server

by dev-in-black
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

get_relation

Retrieve specific relation details in OpenProject to view task connections, dependencies, and inter-project relationships using a relation ID.

Instructions

Get details of a specific relation.

Args:
    relation_id: Relation ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
relation_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/openproject_mcp/server.py:354-361 (handler)
    The MCP tool handler for 'get_relation'. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator and delegates execution to the relations module's get_relation function.
    @mcp.tool()
async def get_relation(relation_id: int):
    """Get details of a specific relation.

    Args:
        relation_id: Relation ID
    """
    return await relations.get_relation(relation_id=relation_id)
  • src/openproject_mcp/tools/relations.py:90-105 (helper)
    Core helper function implementing the logic to fetch a specific relation from the OpenProject API using the client.
    async def get_relation(relation_id: int) -> dict[str, Any]:
    """Get details of a specific relation.

    Args:
        relation_id: Relation ID

    Returns:
        Relation object with details
    """
    client = OpenProjectClient()

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

Tool Definition Quality

C2.9/5.0
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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any other traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences and an Args section. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides parameter information without unnecessary elaboration. However, the structure could be improved by integrating the Args into the main description flow rather than as a separate section.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how to handle errors, or provide any context about relations in the system. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to compensate for these gaps.

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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions 'relation_id: Relation ID', which matches the schema's property name and title, but provides no additional context about what a relation ID is, its format, or where to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's purpose with 'Get details of a specific relation', providing a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('relation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_relation' or 'delete_relation' by focusing on retrieval rather than mutation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getter tools like 'get_work_package' or 'get_project' beyond the resource type.

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 use 'get_relation' instead of 'list_work_package_relations' or 'get_work_package', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid relation_id. The usage 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