Fetch a single project by providing either its numeric ID or slug. Use this to view or manage a specific portfolio project.
Get a specific project by ID or slug
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Project ID | |
| slug | No | Project slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not mention return format, error behavior, or what happens if neither 'id' nor 'slug' is provided, which is especially relevant since both parameters are optional in 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 sentence with no redundant words. 'Specific' adds useful distinction from list operations, and the description is immediately readable and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the response looks like and note that at least one identifier must be supplied. The description covers only the lookup intent, leaving agents without guidance on return values or the optional-parameter ambiguity.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by indicating 'ID or slug' are alternative selectors, which clarifies how the parameters relate even though the schema marks neither as required. It does not explicitly state that at least one is necessary, which would fully close the gap.
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 specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'specific project' and states the two lookup methods (ID or slug). This distinguishes it from 'list_projects' (which returns multiple) and from other entity getters like 'get_skill' or 'get_experience'.
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 implies usage: call this when you need a single project identified by ID or slug, rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as 'list_projects' for querying multiple projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.