Skip to main content
Glama
jfrog

JFrog MCP Server

Official
by jfrog

jfrog_get_specific_project

Retrieve detailed information about a specific project in the JFrog platform by providing the unique project key for streamlined project management and analysis.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific project in the JFrog platform

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_keyYesThe unique key of the project to retrieve

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool definition for 'jfrog_get_specific_project' including name, description, input schema, and handler function that calls the helper getSpecificProjectInformation with the project_key.
    const getSpecificProjectTool = {
      name: "jfrog_get_specific_project",
      description: "Get detailed information about a specific project in the JFrog platform",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(z.object({
        project_key: z.string().describe("The unique key of the project to retrieve")
      })),
      //outputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(accessSchemas.JFrogProjectSchema),
      handler: async (args: any) => {
        return await getSpecificProjectInformation(args.project_key);
      }
    };
  • Helper function that performs the actual API request to retrieve specific project details and parses the response using JFrogProjectSchema.
    export async function getSpecificProjectInformation(projectKey: string) {
      const response = await jfrogRequest(`/access/api/v1/projects/${projectKey}`, {
        method: "GET",
      });
         
      return accessSchemas.JFrogProjectSchema.parse(response);
    }
  • Zod schema JFrogProjectSchema used to validate and parse the output from the JFrog project API response.
    export const JFrogProjectSchema = z.object({
      display_name: z.string().describe("Display name of the project"),
      description: z.string().describe("Project description"),
      admin_privileges: z.object({
        manage_members: z.boolean().describe("Whether admin can manage members"),
        manage_resources: z.boolean().describe("Whether admin can manage resources"),
        index_resources: z.boolean().describe("Whether admin can index resources")
      }),
      storage_quota_bytes: z.number().describe("Storage quota in bytes"),
      soft_limit: z.boolean().describe("Whether soft limit is enabled"),
      storage_quota_email_notification: z.boolean().describe("Whether storage quota email notifications are enabled"),
      project_key: z.string().describe("Unique key of the project")
    });
  • tools/access.ts:85-90 (registration)
    Registration of the tool in the AccessTools array, which is later spread into the main tools list.
    export const AccessTools = [
      getAllEnvironmentsTool,
      listAllProjectsTool,
      createProjectTool,
      getSpecificProjectTool
    ];
  • tools/index.ts:13-23 (registration)
    Main tools array where AccessTools (containing jfrog_get_specific_project) is registered by spreading.
    export const tools =[
      ...RepositoryTools,
      ...BuildsTools,
      ...RuntimeTools,
      ...AccessTools,
      ...AQLTools,
      ...CatalogTools,
      ...CurationTools,
      ...PermissionsTools,
      ...ArtifactSecurityTools,
    ];
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 simple read operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what 'detailed information' includes and any behavioral constraints. The description meets basic requirements but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'project_key' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and target resource ('about a specific project in the JFrog platform'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_list_projects' which likely provides a list rather than details for a single 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jfrog_list_projects' or other 'get_' tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Related 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/jfrog/mcp-jfrog'

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