Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
project-manager

project-manager

by samrullo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

pm_download_project_file

Download a project file by its project and file IDs. Returns base64-encoded content, content type, and file size.

Instructions

GET /projects/{project_id}/files/{file_id}/download — returns JSON with content_base64, content_type, size_bytes.

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>",
      "file_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "pm_download_project_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYes
x_user_idNo
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a GET (read-only) and specifies the response fields, but does not mention authentication, error handling, or side effects. It adds some behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and path, followed by the return structure. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the return value but omits parameter explanations and usage context like required permissions. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description references project_id and file_id via the path template, but does not explain their meaning or the optional x_user_id parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics incomplete.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly identifies the HTTP method (GET), resource path (projects/{project_id}/files/{file_id}/download), and return value (JSON with content_base64, content_type, size_bytes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pm_list_project_files (list only) and pm_upload_project_file (upload).

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?

The description implies that this tool is used to download a file's content, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pm_list_project_files for metadata). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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