Retrieve details for a specific Backlog project using its project ID or key to view project information.
Returns information about a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345) | |
| projectKey | No | The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / properties / projectIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / projectIdOrKeyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Project ID or project key",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "number"
- ]
-}Input schema / properties / projectKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "projectIdOrKey"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior when the project is not found, no indication of what subset of project data is returned, and no mention that projectId/projectKey are alternative lookup keys.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the verb+resource is front-loaded. Its brevity borders on under-specification, but nothing is padded or redundant.
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 is the only place to convey what 'information' means (fields returned, shape, behavior on missing project), and it does not. For a lookup tool that returns an entity, this leaves a meaningful gap.
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 100% and both parameters carry examples in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds no clarification of the important ambiguity that zero parameters are required yet one of projectId or projectKey must presumably be supplied.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('information about a specific project'), so the agent knows it is a single-record lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_project_list or update_project, leaving the single-vs-list distinction to inference from the word 'specific'.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_project_list, get_project_users, or update_project. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-project read path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.