gryzzly-mcp

get_project

Read-only

Retrieve one project's full details by name, code, or ID, including status, dates, contributors, managers, tags, customer, and note. Ambiguous names return candidate matches.

Instructions

Read one project in full, found by name, code or id: status, dates, visibility, contributors, managers, groups, tags, customer and note. Use list_projects to browse or search; use get_project_metrics for budget and time counters. Read-only. An ambiguous name is refused with the matching candidates rather than guessed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes	The project, by name, code or id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The project's identifier.
`code`	No	The project's short code.
`name`	No	The project's name.
`note`	No	The project note.
`tags`	No	The tags attached to the project.
`end_at`	No	When the project is supposed to end.
`groups`	No	The groups assigned to the project.
`status`	No	One of `active`, `done`, `archived`.
`managers`	No	The users managing the project.
`start_at`	No	When the project starts.
`created_at`	No	When the project was created.
`updated_at`	No	When the project was last updated.
`visibility`	No	`public` or `private`.
`customer_id`	No	The customer this project belongs to, when any.
`is_billable`	No	Whether the project is billable.
`contributors`	No	The users allowed to declare on a private project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' statement adds little. However, the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not in the annotations: an ambiguous name is refused and matching candidates are returned instead of guessing, which tells the agent how to handle a failed lookup.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core action and returned fields first, sibling routing second, behavioral caveat last. No filler, and the enumeration of returned fields is compact rather than exhaustive prose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-read lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything the agent needs: what it returns, how to disambiguate from siblings, safety profile, and ambiguity failure behavior. Return-value format is delegated correctly to the output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented as 'by name, code or id.' The description reinforces the accepted identifier forms and adds the ambiguity-resolution behavior tied to that parameter, modestly exceeding the baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one project in full') and enumerates the scope of what is returned (status, dates, visibility, contributors, managers, groups, tags, customer, note). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools list_projects and get_project_metrics.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'Use list_projects to browse or search; use get_project_metrics for budget and time counters.' The agent can route between the three project tools without inference.

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