Skip to main content
Glama

project_modify_project

Update a project by ID to change its name, description, constraints, properties, operation timeout, or shared-resource setting.

Instructions

Modifies a project Modifies a project by id. Fields that can be modified: name, description, constraints, properties, cost, operation timeout, shared resources. PATCH /project-service/api/projects/{id}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe id of the project. (path)
bodyYesRepresents a specification for a updating a project. — Project
apiVersionNoThe version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format. For versioning information refer to /project-service/api/about.2019-01-15

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is a PATCH operation and identifies mutable fields, but it does not explain effects on omitted fields, permissions, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, but 'Modifies a project' is repeated in the next sentence, and the PATCH endpoint line duplicates the annotation title. It is not badly oversized, but it contains avoidable redundancy.

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?

The schema and annotations cover most mechanical details, and the description identifies the target by id and lists body fields. However, it lacks sibling-tool routing and includes the questionable 'cost' field, leaving it incomplete for this crowded project-management tool family.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description says 'cost' can be modified even though the body schema has no cost field and there is a separate project_modify_project_costs tool. This potentially misleads an agent and does not add useful detail beyond the already descriptive schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource, 'Modifies a project by id,' and lists the mutable fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as project_modify_project_costs, project_modify_project_principals, or iaas_update_project.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling project-modification tools. The field list implies updates are possible, but the description gives no exclusions or alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools