Retrieve a specific project lifecycle phase by ID to inspect phase status and support project tracking decisions.
Get a single project lifecycle phase by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| start_date | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes | ||
| finish_date | Yes | ||
| phase_definition | Yes | ||
| phase_definition_id | 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",
- "name",
- "project_id",
- "project",
- "phase_definition_id",
- "phase_definition",
- "start_date",
- "finish_date",
- "created_at",
- "updated_at",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "project_id",
+ "project",
+ "phase_definition_id",
+ "phase_definition",
+ "start_date",
+ "finish_date",
+ "created_at",
+ "updated_at"
+]v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on whether a missing phase errors or returns empty, nor anything about lookup scope. Given rich annotations, this is thin.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a lookup tool sitting among several similarly named phase siblings, the absence of disambiguation and ID-provenance detail leaves the definition only minimally adequate.
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 phase_id, yet it only says "by id," which essentially restates the parameter name. It does not clarify the ID's origin (e.g., from a work package's phase reference or from list_project_phase_definitions).
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 and resource ("Get a single project lifecycle phase") and makes the single-item scope explicit. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely named sibling get_project_phase_definition, so an agent must infer the instance-vs-definition split from the name alone.
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 versus list_project_phase_definitions, get_project_phase_definition, or get_project. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, so the agent gets no routing help beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.