growwer_get_projectRetrieve a user's project in full by ID, including its domain, topics, and current state so you can review or act on complete project details.
Use this when you need one of the user's projects in full, such as its domain, its topics and its state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (domain, topics, state), which annotations cannot express; it says nothing about errors or missing-project behavior, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the selection condition is front-loaded. Slight vagueness in "in full" costs it a perfect score.
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 trivial one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back (domain, topics, state), which compensates for the absent output schema. The only gap is not explaining where the project id comes from.
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 carries the burden for the single `id` parameter. It implies the id identifies one of the user's projects but gives no format or source guidance (e.g., where to obtain the id); the self-explanatory field name keeps this at a baseline 3.
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 states a specific retrieval action on a single project and even previews the payload (domain, topics, state), which distinguishes it from growwer_list_projects. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
"Use this when you need one of the user's projects in full" gives a clear selection condition — full detail on a single project versus a list. There are no explicit when-not cases or named alternatives, but the usage context is unmistakable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.