Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openproject-local-mcp

openproject-local-mcp

by NobuoTsukamoto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get My OpenProject Work Packages

get_my_work_packages

Retrieve work packages assigned to you in OpenProject, with filters for status, project, sorting, and pagination.

Instructions

Get work packages assigned to the configured OpenProject API user.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_my_work_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNo
statusNoopen
sort_byNo
page_sizeNo
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the scope (assigned to user). It does not mention pagination, filtering by status, sorting, or return format, which the parameters imply are configurable.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently uses the available space without any fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to be considered complete. It lacks details on default behavior, result shape, and how parameters affect the outcome, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides zero descriptions for the 5 parameters, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any of them. An agent cannot infer what 'offset', 'status', 'sort_by', 'page_size', or 'project_id' control, making parameter semantics completely opaque.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves work packages assigned to the configured OpenProject API user, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('work packages'). The phrase 'assigned to the configured OpenProject API user' distinguishes it from siblings like search_work_packages or get_work_package.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_work_packages or get_work_package. The description only states the basic function without any contextual cues, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools