get_projectRetrieve detailed information about a specific Redmine project by ID, including optional associations, to support project management and issue tracking.
Get detailed information about a specific project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the implied read semantics. It does not mention permission requirements, whether archived projects are retrievable, or behavior when the project does not exist.
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?
It is a single efficient sentence with no filler and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise — the brevity comes at the cost of missing information rather than from tight editing.
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 spelled out, but with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation the description leaves the 'include' parameter and error/permission behavior entirely unexplained for a tool an agent must call with a valid identifier.
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%, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. In particular the 'include' parameter is completely unexplained — its accepted values and effect are documented nowhere, which is a real gap for a caller.
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 names a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('project') scoped to a single, specific entity, which separates it conceptually from list_projects. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the many sibling project tools (update_project, archive_project, list_projects) and 'detailed information' is vague about what is actually returned.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a project_id, or that list_projects can be used to discover one). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.