Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd Get Project

argocd_get_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an Argo CD project's allowed repositories, destinations, resource allow/deny lists, and roles to audit or verify GitOps access controls; role tokens are never exposed, only counted.

Instructions

Get a project: allowed repos, destinations, resource whitelists/blacklists, and roles.

Role token values (jwtTokens) are never returned; only a token count.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNoReturn the raw API payload instead of the slim one
nameYesProject name
include_rolesNoInclude role definitions (never jwtTokens)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: role token values (jwtTokens) are never returned, only a count. It stops short of noting error behavior for a missing project or any size/rate considerations.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the returned-content summary front-loaded and the redaction caveat immediately after. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the response contains and flags the jwtTokens redaction, which is the main gotcha for this call. It is nearly sufficient for a read-only getter; only error/not-found behavior and the effect of 'full' are left to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100% — 'full' is documented as raw vs slim payload and 'include_roles' already carries the '(never jwtTokens)' note — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's token note reinforces but does not extend parameter meaning, and the 'full' parameter is not addressed in prose. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a project') and enumerates the payload contents (allowed repos, destinations, whitelists/blacklists, roles), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling argocd_list_projects, though the get-vs-list contrast is inferable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. permissions, existence of the project), and no routing to alternatives such as argocd_list_projects for enumeration. Usage is only inferred from the verb and required 'name' parameter.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools