Retrieve a single OpenProject work package priority by its ID to check priority details for project planning, triage, or reporting.
Get a single work package priority by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| priority_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| color | Yes | ||
| position | Yes | ||
| is_active | Yes | ||
| is_default | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.3.3v0.3.0v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only additional signal is that it returns one record rather than a collection; nothing on missing-id behavior or lookup scope.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Brevity is appropriate here, though it leaves room to add a routing clause without bloat.
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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a lookup tool in a large sibling set, the definition omits the one thing an agent needs: how it relates to list_priorities and what a 'priority' is in this domain.
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 coverage is 0%, but with a single required 'priority_id' integer the description's 'by id' at least confirms the parameter is the priority identifier and not a work package id. It doesn't clarify format or where the id comes from, so it doesn't fully compensate 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 and resource ('Get a single work package priority'), clearly narrower than list_priorities in the sibling set. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by 'single...by id' rather than stated.
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?
No when-to-use guidance: it never says to use this when you already have a priority id and to use list_priorities when you need to discover one. An agent must infer the retrieval-vs-enumeration split 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.