projects_getFetch a single Redmine project by ID or identifier, optionally including associated data.
Returns one project by id or identifier, with optional associated data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Project id or identifier. | |
| include | No | Associated data (see projects_list). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 covered. The description adds only that associated data is optional, contributing little behavioral context beyond the structured fields, and says nothing about error behavior for a missing id.
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 short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the phrase 'optional associated data' is slightly vague for the space it occupies.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is close to sufficient, but the include parameter's accepted values are only deferred to 'see projects_list', leaving the caller without a concrete list. No output schema exists, so return shape is not covered either.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters; baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by id or identifier' and 'optional associated data' merely restate what the schema fields say, adding no syntax or valid-value detail.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one project') and the lookup keys ('by id or identifier'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the list-style sibling projects_list. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or any other alternative.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer that this is the single-record lookup versus projects_list on its own, which is the same gap seen in the mid-tier calibration example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.