Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenProject CE MCP

OpenProject CE MCP

by jtauschl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_project_work_package_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve project metadata and, when needed, the writable work-package schema for a specific type to prepare accurate OpenProject work-package creation or updates.

Instructions

Return project metadata and, optionally, the writable work-package schema for a given type.

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYes
project_idYes
project_nameYes
custom_fieldsYes
available_typesYes
selected_type_idYes
available_statusesYes
available_versionsYes
project_identifierYes
selected_type_nameYes
available_categoriesYes
available_prioritiesYes
available_project_phasesYes

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 / $defs / VersionSummary / properties / url
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Url",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / VersionSummary / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "status",
-  "sharing",
-  "start_date",
-  "end_date",
-  "defining_project",
-  "description",
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "status",
+  "sharing",
+  "start_date",
+  "end_date",
+  "defining_project",
+  "description"
+]
  4. Addedv0.3.3
  5. Removedv0.3.0
  6. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful context by noting that the optional schema is 'writable'. It does not provide deeper behavioral details such as permission requirements or how project metadata is scoped.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler language. Every phrase contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and optional behavior.

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?

Given the existing output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete for a read-only context-fetch tool. However, the ambiguity around the optional 'type' parameter is a meaningful gap for an agent that needs to request the writable schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The required 'project' parameter is documented in the schema, but the optional 'type' parameter has no schema description. The description clarifies that 'type' is optional and relates to the writable work-package schema, but it does not explain what kind of value 'type' accepts (e.g., type id or name), leaving a significant gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and specific resources ('project metadata' and 'writable work-package schema'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast itself with overlapping siblings such as get_project or get_type, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 word 'optionally' implies that including a type returns the writable schema, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like get_project, get_type, or list_types. Usage is inferable from the purpose but not directly stated.

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