mcptask.online

AddProjectMemberTool

Add an existing member of the account to a project with a project role. Ask the user who to add and with which role, and never guess either: call without user_id or role_name to get the people who can be added and the roles each may take (needs_input), then call again with both.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_code": "<account_code>",
      "project_relative_id": "<project_relative_id>"
    },
    "name": "AddProjectMemberTool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user_id`	No	Database ID (primary key) of the user to add, from the needs_input list. Must be an active member of the account.
`role_name`	No	Project role: boss, worker, developer, designer, tester, brigadier, client. Purple roles (boss, worker, developer, designer) are for active members of the primary company only.
`account_code`	Yes	Account code (e.g., "bcp", "jchsoft")
`project_relative_id`	Yes	Account-scoped relative ID of the project (not the database ID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds meaningful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the tool has a discovery mode that returns a needs_input list when user_id/role_name are omitted. It does not cover outcomes such as adding an already-present member or permission failures, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed immediately by the required procedure. No filler, and the instruction ordering mirrors the call sequence the agent must follow.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential prerequisite (must obtain user_id and role_name via the discovery call) and the interaction contract. It omits what a successful add returns and error/duplicate-member behavior, which is a modest gap but not a blocking one.

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%, and the schema itself already documents that user_id comes from the needs_input list and that purple roles are restricted to primary-company members. The description reinforces the two-step sourcing of user_id and role_name but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Add an existing member of the account to a project with a project role") and scopes it as a project-membership mutation, which cleanly separates it from siblings like AddAttachmentTool or UpdatePieceTool. An agent can identify what this does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit operating procedure: ask the user, never guess, first call without user_id/role_name to retrieve the eligible people and roles, then call again with both. This is a concrete when/how-to-use rule plus a prohibition, not implied guidance.

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

All mcptask.online tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?