Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenProject CE MCP

OpenProject CE MCP

by jtauschl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an OpenProject project by ID, identifier, or name, including its ancestor chain, and optionally cap long description and status text to a chosen character limit.

Instructions

Get a project by id, identifier or name, including its ancestor chain.

description/status_explanation are returned in full by default (single projects are not truncated). Pass text_limit to cap them at that many characters; when cut, description_truncated/status_explanation_truncated are true and description_length/status_explanation_length report the real length.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesProject identifier, id, or name; a unique part of a name or identifier also matches.
text_limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameYes
activeYes
publicNo
statusNo
ancestorsNo
favoritedNo
parent_idNo
can_deleteNo
can_updateNo
created_atNo
identifierYes
updated_atNo
descriptionYes
parent_nameNo
description_lengthNo
status_explanationNo
ancestors_truncatedNo
description_truncatedNo
status_explanation_lengthNo
status_explanation_truncatedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.4
  2. Removedv0.4.0
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.7
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedOutput schema / properties / url
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Url",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "identifier",
-  "active",
-  "description",
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "identifier",
+  "active",
+  "description"
+]
  4. Addedv0.3.3
  5. Removedv0.3.0
  6. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare a safe, idempotent read), the description discloses return behavior precisely: description/status_explanation come back in full by default, text_limit truncates them, and it names the exact truncation/length flags emitted when cut. This is high-value behavioral context not present in structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a second paragraph dedicated to truncation behavior. The second paragraph is dense but each sentence carries actionable information; only minor tightening would improve it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present the description needn't enumerate returns, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps (truncation defaults and flags) so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: the `project` param is documented in-schema, but `text_limit` has no schema description. The description compensates by fully explaining text_limit's semantics (character cap, resulting truncation flags, real-length fields), adding meaning beyond the bare integer schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a project") and adds the qualifying scope "including its ancestor chain," which distinguishes it from list_projects and the various get_project_* context tools. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by explaining accepted identifier forms (id, identifier, name) but never states when to prefer this over siblings like get_project_admin_context, get_project_configuration, or get_project_work_package_context. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools