Skip to main content
Glama

get_project

Retrieve project details from QASE test management platform using a project code. Access project information for test management workflows.

Instructions

Get project by code

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler for the 'get_project' tool call: parses input args using GetProjectSchema and invokes getProject(code).
    .with({ name: 'get_project' }, ({ arguments: args }) => {
      const { code } = GetProjectSchema.parse(args);
      return getProject(code);
    })
  • Zod schema defining input for get_project: requires a 'code' string.
    export const GetProjectSchema = z.object({
      code: z.string(),
    });
  • src/index.ts:136-139 (registration)
    Registration of 'get_project' tool in ListToolsRequestSchema response, including name, description, and input schema.
      name: 'get_project',
      description: 'Get project by code',
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(GetProjectSchema),
    },
  • Helper function getProject that binds the Qase client method to get project by code and applies toResult transformation.
    export const getProject = pipe(
      client.projects.getProject.bind(client.projects),
      toResult,
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what happens on failure (e.g., if the code doesn't exist), or any rate limits or authentication needs. For a retrieval tool, this minimal description misses key operational details.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words—and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter details, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., returns project details or just metadata), error handling, or how it fits within the broader context of sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics by implying that 'code' is used to identify a project, but with 0% schema description coverage and one required parameter, it doesn't elaborate on the format or constraints of 'code' (e.g., whether it's a numeric ID, string identifier, or case-sensitive). This provides some value over the bare schema but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Get project by code' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by code'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or other 'get_' tools that might retrieve projects differently, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'get_project' over 'list_projects' or other retrieval tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints. This lack of usage direction leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rikuson/mcp-qase'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server