Retrieve a project's map, notes, roles, and protocol size summary without the full protocol body, so agents can quickly orient to standing guidance and situated identity.
Return a project map, notes, roles, and protocol size summary without the protocol body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the explicit exclusion of the protocol body is useful behavioral context. It does not mention permission requirements or error behavior, but the simple read-only nature is sufficiently conveyed.
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 one tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and result, then specifies the key exclusion. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned and what is omitted. Minor gaps remain around parameter format and explicit routing to alternative tools for the protocol body, but these are not severe given the tool's simplicity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It suggests that the sole 'project' parameter identifies which project's data to fetch, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not clarify whether the parameter expects a name, ID, or path, leaving some ambiguity.
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 ('Return') and identifies a clear resource: a project's map, notes, roles, and protocol size summary. It explicitly states the protocol body is excluded, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stanza and list_projects.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used when an agent needs project-level summary data without the protocol body. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stanza or get_role, nor does it name exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.