get_projectRetrieve one project by ID to see what it is, which site it serves, and its settings. Use it to fetch CMSKite project configuration.
One project: what it is, which site it serves, and its settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The project id, as `prj_...`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds a modest behavioral cue by enumerating returned content (identity, site, settings), but says nothing about permissions, scoping, or failure behavior for an unknown projectId. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate-but-thin.
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 compact sentence fragment with no padding, and the key fact (one project) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness is arguably part of the under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden; it partially discharges this by naming what a project contains (identity, site, settings). Still missing are the actual field-level shape, error behavior for invalid IDs, and differentiation from get_project_summary. Complete enough for a simple single-resource read, but shallow.
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 100% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the `prj_...` format. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies. Zero-ambiguity on a one-param tool keeps it from being a weak score.
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 phrase 'One project' conveys singular retrieval of a project and lists contents (site, settings), so the resource is identifiable. However, it never names the retrieval verb or the identifier-based lookup semantics (by projectId), and it draws no boundary against get_project_summary or list_projects. The purpose is inferable but not sharply stated.
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 at all. With siblings like list_projects, get_project_summary, and update_project in the same namespace, an agent gets no signal on when to pick this one over retrieving summary data or a full list. Only the implied 'single vs. many' distinction from the word 'One' offers any routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.