Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ohneben's Wafeq MCP

ohneben's Wafeq MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

wafeq_projects_retrieve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific project by ID from Wafeq to access current project data for review or validation, with no modifications made.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Projects · GET /projects/{id}/

Retrieve project

Endpoint for retrieving a single project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wafeq_projects_retrieve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already specify readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the GET method and single-object scope but no additional behavioral context such as response shape, errors, or prerequisites, so it provides modest value beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the endpoint, but 'Retrieve project' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single project' are redundant. The third line adds only a repeated statement, so not every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only retrieve endpoint, the existing annotation set and endpoint description are nearly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks response or error details, but the tool name and resource path communicate the expected return reasonably well.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the id parameter. It partially does by showing id in the URL /projects/{id}/, which identifies it as the project identifier, but it does not explain the id format or where to obtain it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific operation: retrieving a single project via a GET endpoint. The word 'single' distinguishes it from wafeq_projects_list, and the resource name separates it from create/update/destroy siblings, though no alternative is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus wafeq_projects_list or other retrieve tools. The intended use is only implied by the endpoint and the word 'single', with no exclusions or alternative routing provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools