Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenProject CE MCP

OpenProject CE MCP

by jtauschl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_project_admin_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve project admin metadata, including lifecycle statuses, parent options, and writable fields, to determine valid edits and settings before updating OpenProject project data.

Instructions

Return project admin metadata such as lifecycle statuses, parent options, and writable fields.

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYes
projectYes
available_statusesYes
available_parent_projectsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.4
  2. Removedv0.4.0
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.8
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / ProjectRef / description
      Added value: +"Lightweight project picklist entry -- id/identifier/name only.\n\nUsed where a caller needs to pick a project by reference (e.g. a parent\nproject) but not read its full description/status: the full ProjectSummary\nwould cost a description/status_explanation (up to 1200 chars) per\ncandidate for no benefit to that use case."
  4. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.3.7
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedOutput schema / $defs / ProjectRef / properties / url
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Url",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / ProjectRef / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "identifier",
-  "name",
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "identifier",
+  "name"
+]
    • removedOutput schema / $defs / ProjectSummary / properties / url
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Url",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / ProjectSummary / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "identifier",
-  "active",
-  "description",
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "identifier",
+  "active",
+  "description"
+]
  5. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.3.5
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / ProjectRef
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "title": "Id",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "identifier": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "title": "Identifier"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "title": "Name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "title": "Url",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "identifier",
+    "name",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "title": "ProjectRef",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / available_parent_projects / items / $ref
      Previous value: -"#/$defs/ProjectSummary"New value: +"#/$defs/ProjectRef"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / project_links
      Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "title": "Project Links",
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "project",
-  "available_statuses",
-  "available_parent_projects",
-  "fields",
-  "project_links"
-]New value: +[
+  "project",
+  "available_statuses",
+  "available_parent_projects",
+  "fields"
+]
  6. Addedv0.3.3
  7. Removedv0.3.0
  8. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return contains lifecycle statuses, parent options, and writable fields, which is useful context. It does not mention permission requirements or the scope of the metadata (project-wide vs user-specific), and the output schema carries the rest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slight imprecision from the open-ended "such as" hedge, but nothing wasteful.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. However, for a helper tool in a dense sibling set, it does not say how it relates to update_project or get_project_configuration, which is the main missing context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `project` parameter is documented in the schema, including the partial-name-match behavior. The description adds nothing about how the project identifier interacts with the returned metadata, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb-plus-resource ("Return project admin metadata") is present, and examples (lifecycle statuses, parent options, writable fields) narrow it down. But "admin metadata" is fuzzy, and the description never distinguishes the tool from close siblings like get_project, get_project_configuration, or get_project_work_package_context, which plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_project_configuration or update_project, no mention that it is typically called before a project update to discover writable fields, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the use case from the field examples alone.

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