Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent-mcp-server

by samaxbytez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

freeagent_get_project

Read-only

Retrieve a single FreeAgent project by its ID to access project details for invoicing, timeslips, or reporting workflows.

Instructions

Get a single project from FreeAgent by ID

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no behavior when the ID is unknown (not-found handling), no indication of what subset of project data is returned, and no auth or rate-limit context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero wasted wording. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, and no output schema, so return values need not be described. Still, an agent gets no guidance on not-found behavior or on how this differs from the list/create/update/delete project siblings.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting project_id's type and pattern. The description adds no format hints 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.

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single project') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which implicitly distinguishes it from freeagent_list_projects. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the single-vs-list distinction is inferable from the wording.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by ID' signals retrieval when a project identifier is already known. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over freeagent_list_projects or the create/update/delete project siblings.

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