Retrieve a single OpenProject work package type by its ID to inspect its configuration or use it in project data workflows.
Get a single work package type by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| color | Yes | ||
| position | Yes | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| is_default | Yes | ||
| updated_at | No | ||
| is_milestone | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / properties / urlRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "color",
- "position",
- "is_default",
- "is_milestone",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "color",
+ "position",
+ "is_default",
+ "is_milestone"
+]v0.3.3v0.3.0v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the single-item scope and id-based lookup, without error or permission details.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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?
For a simple read-only getter with annotations and an output schema, the description is close to complete. The main remaining gap is that it does not help the agent understand where the type id comes from.
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 must compensate. It only says 'by id', which gives minimal meaning and does not clarify that type_id refers to a work package type identifier rather than another entity.
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 (Get), resource (single work package type), and lookup key (by id). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_types because it retrieves a single type by identifier.
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?
The description implies use when a type id is known, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative such as list_types for discovering ids.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.