Fetches a single meeting outcome by ID from OpenProject 17.6+, enabling agents to inspect recorded decisions or results.
Get a single meeting outcome by id.
Requires OpenProject 17.6+.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outcome_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| notes | Yes | ||
| author | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes | ||
| notes_length | Yes | ||
| notes_truncated | Yes | ||
| work_package_id | Yes | ||
| meeting_agenda_item_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one piece of context beyond annotations — the OpenProject 17.6+ version requirement — but says nothing about permissions or error behavior for a missing id.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource; the version constraint follows as a caveat. No wasted words.
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 the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the definition is nearly sufficient; only the source of the id and any permission/visibility caveats are 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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter. 'by id' only weakly identifies outcome_id, and it gives no hint about where to obtain the id (e.g., from list_meeting_outcomes) or its format. Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.
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 ('Get') and resource ('meeting outcome') scoped to a single record by id. The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with list_meeting_outcomes, but no sibling is named, so distinction relies on inference.
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?
Only implicit guidance: use this when you have an id. No mention of when to prefer list_meeting_outcomes (e.g., when the id is unknown), no prerequisites beyond the version note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.