Retrieves detailed information for a specific project using its UUID, so you can inspect project configuration and status before deploying or diagnosing issues.
Get detailed information about a specific project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond identifying the operation and does not describe return behavior, permissions, or not-found handling, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and scope.
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 one-parameter getter with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, there is no output schema, and 'detailed information' does not indicate what project fields or response shape the agent should expect.
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 the single project_id parameter is already documented as a UUID in the schema. The description does not add format, example, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific project.' It distinguishes a single-project lookup from list operations like deployado_list_projects, but does not explicitly name siblings or clarify how it differs from related getters such as deployado_get_app.
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 only implied: 'a specific project' suggests this is for retrieving one project by ID, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions compared with list_projects or other project-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.