Fetch a single Gatekeeper project using its slug, returning payment history and audit log. Ideal for answering questions about a specific client site.
Get one Gatekeeper project with payment history and audit log. Use when the user asks about a specific client site or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that the response bundles payment history and audit log, which is not visible from 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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The key action and selection criterion are front-loaded, and every word adds value.
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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description is largely complete. It names the resource, the selection parameter, and the included related data. It could be slightly more precise about what 'slug' refers to, but nothing critical is missing.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 'slug' parameter. It does connect slug to a specific client site/project, giving basic meaning. However, it does not explain the slug format, where to find it, or clarify that it is the identifier used to select the project.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('one Gatekeeper project'), and adds that it includes payment history and audit log. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gatekeeper_list_projects and gatekeeper_get_project_audit.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks about a specific client site or slug. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the condition is clear enough to route an agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.