Retrieve one Hydra project's settings and each jobset's state, including errors and last evaluation, to inspect project health and jobset status.
Get one project's settings and the state of each of its jobsets (errors, last evaluation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| instance | No | Configured Hydra instance; omitted uses the default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful detail about returned content—project settings, per-jobset errors, and last evaluation—which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but with annotations present the bar is lower.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause ('settings', 'state of each of its jobsets', 'errors, last evaluation') adds meaningful scope information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description states the core scope well for a read-only getter; the main remaining gap is not routing the agent to sibling tools like get_jobset or list_projects when those might be more appropriate.
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 only 50%: the 'instance' parameter is documented in the schema, but the required 'project' parameter has no description there or in the tool description. The description does not clarify the project identifier format or how instance selection affects results, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one project's settings and the state of each of its jobsets'), making the scope clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_projects by specifying 'one project', but does not explicitly name any sibling tools for differentiation.
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 implied: this tool is for inspecting a single project's settings and jobset health. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_projects, get_jobset, or put_project, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.