openproject-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search OpenProject Work Packages

search_work_packages

Search OpenProject work packages using common API v3 filters like project, status, assignee, priority, and custom criteria to locate relevant items.

Instructions

Search work packages with common OpenProject API v3 filters.

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": "search_work_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`offset`	No
`status`	No
`sort_by`	No
`type_id`	No
`page_size`	No
`project_id`	No
`assignee_id`	No
`priority_id`	No
`custom_filters`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'search with filters.' It does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, read-only nature, or any filter semantics, so the agent gets minimal behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only one sentence with no redundancy, which is concise, but the sentence is too generic to convey meaningful information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 10 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools that overlap in purpose, a one-sentence vague description is grossly inadequate. The agent cannot determine key behaviors, parameter requirements, or expected results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. Parameter names like text, offset, status, and custom_filters are left entirely to inference, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description identifies the action ('search') and resource ('work packages') clearly, and the title reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings like get_work_package and create_work_package, though the phrase 'common API v3 filters' is vague.

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 for when to use this tool versus get_my_work_packages or get_work_package. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context signals to help the agent choose correctly.

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

Deploy Server