Claude Dialogue MCP

Get Project Details

dialogue_get_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete details of a dialogue project by its ID. Returns full project object or error if not found.

Instructions

Get full details of a specific dialogue project.

Args:

project_id (string): The project ID

Returns: Complete project object or error if not found.

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": "dialogue_get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	The project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return behavior: 'Complete project object or error if not found.' This goes beyond annotations by describing success and error outcomes, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. The structured Args/Returns format makes it easy to parse. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema) and strong annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context. It explains the return type and error behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%; the schema already documents project_id as 'The project ID'. The description repeats this but adds no extra semantics about format, constraints, or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get full details of a specific dialogue project.' This distinguishes it from siblings like dialogue_list_projects (which lists projects) and dialogue_read_thread (which reads threads). No ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you need full details of a specific project by ID. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear for a standard get-by-ID operation. There is no misleading guidance.

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

Deploy Server