get_projectFetch full project details, including employer information and bid count, to assess project viability before bidding.
Full details of one project, including the employer block and bid count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | raw | |
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the response includes the employer block and bid count, which is mild behavioral context, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination (likely irrelevant for single-item), error conditions, or auth requirements. With annotations present, the description adds only a modest amount beyond them.
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?
One single sentence with zero filler. The resource scope (one project) is front-loaded, and the note about the employer block and bid count adds useful content without redundancy.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is thin. The meaning of the format enum values is undocumented, the output structure is undefined, and no example or edge-case guidance is provided. An agent would need to guess what to expect for 'summary' vs 'raw', which is a meaningful gap.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented format parameter. It does not explain the difference between 'summary' and 'raw' formats, and provides no meaning beyond the schema's enum/default values. project_id is self-evident from the tool's name, but the format ambiguity remains unresolved.
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 description states it returns full details of one project, including the employer block and bid count, which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes this single-fetch tool from list-oriented siblings like list_projects or find_projects, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects, find_projects, or get_contest. The claim that it provides 'full details of one project' implies usage context, but there is no explicit instruction or exclusion language, and the format parameter's two modes' use cases are unexplained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.