Retrieve project admin metadata including lifecycle statuses, parent options, and writable fields to inform configuration decisions.
Return project admin metadata such as lifecycle statuses, parent options, and writable fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| available_statuses | Yes | ||
| available_parent_projects | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.3.8Output schema / $defs / ProjectRef / descriptionAdded value: +"Lightweight project picklist entry -- id/identifier/name only.\n\nUsed where a caller needs to pick a project by reference (e.g. a parent\nproject) but not read its full description/status: the full ProjectSummary\nwould cost a description/status_explanation (up to 1200 chars) per\ncandidate for no benefit to that use case."v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / $defs / ProjectRef / properties / urlRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / $defs / ProjectRef / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "identifier",
- "name",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "identifier",
+ "name"
+]Output schema / $defs / ProjectSummary / properties / urlRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / $defs / ProjectSummary / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "identifier",
- "active",
- "description",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "identifier",
+ "active",
+ "description"
+]v0.3.5Output schema / $defs / ProjectRefAdded value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "title": "Id",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "identifier": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Identifier"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "title": "Name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "title": "Url",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "identifier",
+ "name",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "title": "ProjectRef",
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / available_parent_projects / items / $refPrevious value: -"#/$defs/ProjectSummary"New value: +"#/$defs/ProjectRef"Output schema / properties / project_linksRemoved value: -{
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "title": "Project Links",
- "type": "array"
-}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project",
- "available_statuses",
- "available_parent_projects",
- "fields",
- "project_links"
-]New value: +[
+ "project",
+ "available_statuses",
+ "available_parent_projects",
+ "fields"
+]v0.3.3v0.3.0v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the verb 'Return' reasonably signals a read-only operation, and the examples clarify the kind of data returned. However, the description does not disclose permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the result is scoped by the current user—gaps that matter for an admin-related tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with concrete examples and no filler. It avoids repeating schema details and communicates the tool's core purpose efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. Still, it omits usage context and parameter-value guidance, and the presence of similar sibling tools means the description is only minimally complete for correct selection and invocation.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the project parameter beyond what the schema title already conveys. An agent is left to guess whether 'project' expects an ID, identifier, or some other form, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 concrete action ('Return') and a specific resource ('project admin metadata') with useful examples: lifecycle statuses, parent options, and writable fields. It is clear about what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like get_project_configuration or get_project_work_package_context.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent must infer when 'admin metadata' is the right category, and the large sibling list contains several tools with overlapping names and purposes, making that inference risky.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jtauschl/openproject-ce-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server