get_projectRetrieve a project's full details—status, pending requirements, progress counts, allowance, readiness, texts, images, and site image candidates—to review submission readiness.
One project in full: status, what it waits for, progress counts, allowance, readiness, texts, images and the image candidates found on its site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project id (prj_...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned content (status, wait state, progress counts, allowance, readiness, texts, images, site image candidates), but gives no caveats about permissions, missing projects, or data shape.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core scope ('One project in full') and then lists returned fields. It is dense but efficient with no filler.
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?
Given no output schema, the field enumeration is useful, but the list is somewhat vague ('what it waits for', 'texts', 'images') and omits behavior for unknown ids. It is minimally adequate for a simple get-by-id tool but leaves gaps.
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 100%, with project_id fully documented including its pattern, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 makes clear this returns a single project 'in full', which distinguishes it from list_projects without naming it explicitly. The verb 'get' is implicit ('One project in full'), but the resource and detail-retrieval scope are unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_projects or update_project, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned. The only hint is 'One project in full', leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.