get_projectRetrieve a project's name, status, monitored website domains and brand names, and competitor IDs for updates or deletions by organization and project ID.
A project's name and status, the website domains and brand names it is monitored for, and all of its competitors with their ids (update_competitor and delete_competitor take them).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ||
| organizationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that the payload includes domains, brand names and competitors with ids, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or scoping beyond the schema.
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 compact sentence with no filler, though it is structured as an output summary rather than leading with the action the tool performs.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload (name, status, domains, brands, competitors with ids), which partially fills that gap. But it omits any guidance on the two required identifiers and doesn't clarify scoping or possible empty results.
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% — both required parameters (organizationId, projectId) are undocumented in the schema, and the description never mentions them or distinguishes their roles. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.
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 is a noun phrase enumerating returned fields rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, though 'Get a project' in the title plus the field list make the retrieval purpose inferable. It does distinguish itself from list_projects by describing the detail payload rather than a collection.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like list_projects. However, the parenthetical that update_competitor and delete_competitor take the returned competitor ids is an implied usage context, telling the agent this tool supplies ids for later mutations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.