Retrieve a project's budget summary with planned, estimated, forecast, and spent amounts to compare top-down, bottom-up, period-end close, and actual spend.
Get budget summary for a project. Returns four budget objects: budgetTopDown (planned), budgetBottomUp (estimated), budgetPeriodEndClose (forecast), budgetActual (spent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a read-only call but nothing states it outright. The enumeration of the four returned objects is genuinely useful behavioral context absent an output schema, though permission or rate-limit behavior is unaddressed.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the action and the return payload front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by naming the four budget objects.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the four budget objects and their meanings (planned/estimated/forecast/spent). It stops short of the behavioral context a zero-annotation mutation-free tool could still add, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.
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% for the single projectId parameter, so the schema already documents it, and the description adds no format or scoping detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get budget summary for a project') and enumerates the four budget objects returned, which distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_project or get_project_progress. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces without opening a schema.
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?
Usage is only implied by the resource name; the description never says when to prefer this over siblings such as get_project or query_datamart/aggregate_portfolio, nor any prerequisites. Adequate for a plainly named read getter but no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.