Retrieve a single OpenProject view by ID to inspect saved project information and support AI-driven project data tasks.
Get a single OpenProject view by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| links | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| public | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| starred | Yes | ||
| query_id | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| updated_at | 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",
- "type",
- "name",
- "project_id",
- "project",
- "query_id",
- "query",
- "public",
- "starred",
- "created_at",
- "updated_at",
- "links",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "type",
+ "name",
+ "project_id",
+ "project",
+ "query_id",
+ "query",
+ "public",
+ "starred",
+ "created_at",
+ "updated_at",
+ "links"
+]v0.3.3v0.3.0v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, and the output schema covers the return shape. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these — nothing about permissions, error behavior for a missing id, or what a 'view' contains relative to a grid.
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 no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is terse to the point of being underspecified, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
Because annotations declare the safety profile and an output schema exists, the essentials for a correct call are present. What is missing is domain context an agent would need to choose this tool confidently — what a view is and how it relates to grids and views listings.
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% for the single required parameter, and the description only supplies the phrase 'by id', which adds virtually nothing beyond the parameter name view_id. No format, validity, or lookup-failure semantics are given.
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') and resource ('a single OpenProject view by id'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish the tool from the nearby list_views/get_grid siblings, but the singular-by-id scope is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_views or get_grid, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the detail-fetch counterpart of the view listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.