openproject-mcp

List users

op_list_users

List users visible to your API key with filters for name, status, and login to find specific users quickly.

Instructions

List users visible to the current API key. Supports filters such as "name" ("~" search), "status" ("=" "active"/"locked"/"invited"), "login" ("=" exact).

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": "op_list_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filters`	No
`sortBy`	No
`offset`	No
`pageSize`	No
`raw`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It mentions visibility scope ('visible to current API key') but omits details like pagination, rate limits, or the fact that it's a read operation. The schema shows sorting and pagination parameters, but the description does not address these behavioral aspects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then listing filter examples. It is concise with no superfluous words, though a more structured breakdown of parameters could improve clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only addresses filters for a few fields, leaving sorting, pagination, and raw mode undocumented. The agent would lack essential context for using the tool effectively.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only partially covers the 'filters' parameter by naming specific fields and operators. It does not explain 'sortBy', 'offset', 'pageSize', or 'raw'. The description adds some value but fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation for 4 out of 5 parameters.

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 lists users visible to the current API key, and provides example filters for name, status, and login. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools that list other resources.

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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like op_get_user for a single user or op_list_watchers for watchers. No when-not or context for selection is given.

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