Lists a Harbor project's members with measured truncation, so you can retrieve and review project membership and access roles while keeping response sizes bounded.
[READ] List a Harbor project's members with measured truncation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely repeats it. The one piece of added behavior, 'measured truncation', is cryptic: it does not say how truncation is surfaced, whether a limit is enforced, or what happens to omitted members.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core purpose appears first. The '[READ]' tag is redundant with the annotation, which is the only wasted token.
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?
With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and only a readOnly hint, the description needed to explain the required project argument, the meaning of 'target', and how truncation is reported. It does none of these, leaving an agent to guess at invocation semantics.
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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry meaning and largely does not. 'Project' is at least implied by the purpose, and 'limit' is loosely hinted at by 'truncation', but 'target' is left completely undefined in both schema and description.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: list a Harbor project's members. That is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools such as harbor_robot_accounts or harbor_projects. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as project existence or required permissions. The only contextual cue, 'measured truncation', is not explained as a usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.