Retrieve detailed information about a specific OmniFocus project by ID or name for task management and review.
Get information about a specific project by ID or name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The ID of the project to retrieve | |
| projectName | No | The name of the project to retrieve (alternative to projectId) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that the tool gets information and does not disclose behavior for missing projects, ambiguous project names, or precedence when both projectId and projectName are supplied.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource and lookup keys immediately.
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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not say what project information is returned or how lookup ambiguity is handled.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including that projectName is an alternative to projectId. The description mentions ID or name but adds no precedence or conflict-resolution semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get information about a specific project.' It distinguishes a single-project lookup from broader project listing by specifying ID or name, though it does not explicitly name list_projects as the alternative.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you know a project ID or name and want that specific project. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over list_projects or get_projects_for_review, nor does it address what to do if both projectId and projectName are omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.