solidtime-mcp

solidtime_project_get

Read-only

Retrieve a single Solidtime project by project ID to view its details, optionally scoped to an organization when multiple memberships exist.

Instructions

Get one project. GET .../projects/{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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "solidtime_project_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`organization_id`	No	Organization UUID. Falls back to SOLIDTIME_ORGANIZATION_ID, then a single membership from GET /v1/users/me/memberships.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the REST endpoint path, which helps map to the underlying API but reveals nothing extra about behavior, error cases, or what a miss returns.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler wording. However, the second sentence is largely redundant with the tool name and under-specifies rather than informs, so brevity here is not fully earned.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe what a project record contains or what happens on a not-found response, and it does neither. For a two-parameter lookup tool the gap is small but real, since the required identifier's semantics are undocumented.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: organization_id is well documented with its fallback chain, but project_id — the sole required parameter — has no description in either schema or prose. The description line does nothing to clarify the identifier format or whether it accepts a UUID.

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?

"Get one project" names a specific verb and a singular resource, which cleanly separates it from the list-style siblings such as solidtime_projects_list. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the singular framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 on when to retrieve a single project versus listing projects, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid project UUID or the organization fallback behavior. The agent must infer all selection logic from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server