List all members involved in a project. Includes users who have sessions in the project and users from teams linked to the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Project ID | |
| project_name | No | Project name (alternative to project_id) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral details. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation and defines the member composition, but it does not disclose what happens when neither project_id nor project_name is provided, or any other operational nuance.
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 consists of two concise sentences, with the first immediately stating the purpose and the second adding necessary scope. No filler or redundancy.
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 straightforward list tool with no output schema and optional parameters, the description covers the key aspect of what members are included. The parameter details are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for agent understanding.
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?
Both parameters already have descriptions in the schema, including that project_name is an alternative to project_id. The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage applies.
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 clear action ('List all members involved in a project') with a specific resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_project_teams by detailing that members include both session users and team-linked users.
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 provides clear context for when to use: when you need all members involved in a project. The explanation of what is included (session users and team-linked users) helps an agent select it over other list tools, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases.
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.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
