get_projectGet a Project with recent Intel and related Projects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idOrSlug | Yes | Project ID or slug; slug aliases resolve |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / data / properties / emergenceRemoved value: -{
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / data / properties / emergenceRankRemoved value: -{
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / properties / data / properties / emergenceAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / data / properties / emergenceRankAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / idOrSlug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Canonical Project id or slug"New value: +"Project ID or slug; slug aliases resolve"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds behavioral detail about returning 'recent Intel and related Projects', which is helpful beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes key qualifiers. No wasted words; efficient and clear.
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 the low complexity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns. The mention of 'recent Intel and related Projects' adds value without needing to duplicate the output schema.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of idOrSlug. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it retrieves a single project along with recent intel and related projects, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists projects) or get_intel (which gets only intel). However, it could be more precise about the scope of 'recent' and what 'related Projects' entails.
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?
The description implies use when you need a single project with associated intel and related projects, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_projects or get_project_series. No guidance on exclusions or preconditions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action: single vs. list (get vs. list), intel vs. project vs. topic vs. report vs. cluster vs. vocabulary vs. credential check. No two tools have overlapping purposes; the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Uses a consistent pattern: get_ for singular retrieval, list_ for plural searches/listing. Only 'me' deviates, but it's a standard name for credential checks. The pattern is predictable and easy to follow.
12 tools cover a focused domain (crypto intelligence) without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place: core entities (projects, topics, intel), plus series, reports, vocabulary, clusters, and auth check. The count feels well-scoped.
The server provides a complete read surface for its domain: listing, searching, getting details, historical series, reports, and filter metadata. No obvious gaps for consuming intelligence (CRUD not expected in a read-only API).