Skip to main content
Glama

things_get_project

Retrieve all to-dos from a specific project in Things 3, enabling users to view and manage task lists by project ID with optional result limits.

Instructions

Get all to-dos in a specific project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
max_resultsNoLimit number of results returned (defaults to all if not specified)

Implementation Reference

  • The logic for `things_get_project` extracts the `project_id` from the parameters and calls `executeAppleScriptFile` with the 'get-project-todos' script.
    if (toolName === 'things_get_project') {
      const projectParams = params as z.infer<typeof GetProjectSchema>;
      scriptArgs = [projectParams.project_id];
    } else if (toolName === 'things_get_area') {
      const areaParams = params as z.infer<typeof GetAreaSchema>;
      scriptArgs = [areaParams.area_id];
    } else if (toolName === 'things_get_todo_details') {
      const todoParams = params as z.infer<typeof GetTodoDetailsSchema>;
      scriptArgs = [todoParams.id];
      // Don't pass maxResults for todo details since it's a single item
      delete options.maxResults;
    }
    
    const output = await executeAppleScriptFile(scriptName, scriptArgs, options);
  • src/tools/get.ts:62-65 (registration)
    Definition of the `things_get_project` tool within the GetToolHandler class.
      name: 'things_get_project',
      description: 'Get all to-dos in a specific project',
      schema: GetProjectSchema
    },
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 but fails to indicate safety properties (read-only, idempotent), error handling for invalid project_ids, or whether completed/cancelled to-dos are included. 'Get' implies read-only but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 extremely brief at seven words with no filler. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, this conciseness comes at the cost of necessary behavioral context, making it slightly too terse rather than efficiently informative.

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?

For a two-parameter read operation, the description meets minimum viability by stating the core retrieval function. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits expected details about return structure, error states, and data scope (active vs. completed to-dos).

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?

Schema coverage is 50% (max_results is described, project_id is not). The description partially compensates by referencing 'a specific project', implying the purpose of the undocumented project_id parameter. However, it omits any mention of the max_results pagination control.

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 retrieves 'all to-dos' (specific verb + resource) within a project scope. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'things_get_projects' (plural) by requiring a specific project identifier and focusing on to-dos rather than project metadata.

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 like 'things_get_list' or 'things_get_inbox'. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project_id from 'things_get_projects') and does not mention when not to use it.

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/hildersantos/things-mcp'

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