Retrieve a single OpenProject dashboard grid by its ID to inspect its details and configuration.
Get a single dashboard grid by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grid_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| scope | Yes | ||
| row_count | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes | ||
| column_count | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.4v0.4.0v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / properties / urlRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "row_count",
- "column_count",
- "scope",
- "created_at",
- "updated_at",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "row_count",
+ "column_count",
+ "scope",
+ "created_at",
+ "updated_at"
+]v0.3.3v0.3.0v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no return format, pagination, or dashboard/grid scoping details—so it contributes nothing extra.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is appropriately terse, though its brevity is also the source of the definition's gaps.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a getter the description still says nothing about what a dashboard grid is, whether access is project-scoped, or where a valid grid_id comes from, leaving a modest 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% and the single property is merely named grid_id. The phrase 'by id' slightly reinforces that grid_id is an identifier, but it gives no format, example, or indication of where to obtain a grid id, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('dashboard grid') and scopes it to a single item ('single ... by id'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_grids and from create/update/delete_grid. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_grids or other grid tools, nor any prerequisite such as needing an id from list_grids first. The only hint is the phrase 'by id', which leaves the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.