get_projectRead one of the dev's projects by id — includes label, status, customer details, intake responses, AI brief, drive folder. Use before update_brief / regenerate_brief.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | project id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"project id"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is clear. The description adds that it includes specific fields, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first explains the purpose and included data, the second provides usage guidance. Highly concise without superfluous words.
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 tool has one parameter, read-only annotations, an output schema, and the description covers purpose and usage, it is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
The schema already fully describes the single parameter (id) with format and pattern. The description does not add further semantics, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
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 the tool reads a project by ID and lists the included fields (label, status, customer details, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects or update_brief.
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 explicitly says 'Use before update_brief / regenerate_brief', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., add_domain, add_subdomain, add_custom_domain, add_sending_domain) or similar names like check_domain and check_custom_domain, which can confuse an agent. While descriptions help, the sheer number of closely related tools makes it difficult to consistently select the correct one.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are exceptions like 'read_thread' (instead of get_thread) and 'mark_thread_read' (verb_noun_verb). Prefixes like 'data_' are used inconsistently with other tools, but overall the naming is still readable.
With 103 tools, the server is extremely bloated. Even for a comprehensive platform, this count overwhelms any agent and makes the tool surface difficult to navigate. Many tools could be merged or are too granular.
The toolset covers a wide range of operations across sites, domains, email, marketplace, projects, contracts, and functions. While some updates (e.g., general contract editing) are missing, the surface is mostly comprehensive for the domain.