Retrieve a single visible GitHub Project v2 board and its fields by organization and project number, so AI agents can inspect project metadata for cross-repository coordination.
Read one visible GitHub Project v2 and its fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | ||
| organization | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' and 'visible' usefully imply a non-mutating, permission-scoped operation, but there is no statement of auth requirements, what 'fields' are returned, or behavior for a nonexistent/inaccessible project number.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though there is very little content to structure.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should convey what is returned, yet 'and its fields' is the only hint. For a lookup tool whose whole value is the returned project representation, that omission is significant.
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% and the description never references the two required parameters (organization, number). The meanings are largely inferable from the names, but the description adds no semantics such as whether 'number' is the project's global number or its position.
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 ('Read') and resource ('one visible GitHub Project v2 and its fields'), which is clearly distinct from the plural list_projects. It does not explicitly name the siblings, so an agent must infer that the singular/plural distinction is the routing rule.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (list_projects, list_project_items). The singular 'one' implies retrieval of a single project by identifier, but the agent must infer that from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.