projects_list_project_usersList all users associated with or assigned to a specific project by project ID, with optional pagination for large teams.
List users associated with or assigned to a specific project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope nuance (associated vs assigned users) but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page parameters.
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 efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool the description leaves pagination undocumented and offers no usage context, so it is only minimally adequate.
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% and the description only implicitly covers project_id ('a specific project'). The page and per_page parameters are entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: listing users scoped to a specific project. The phrase 'associated with or assigned to' is slightly ambiguous about which set is returned, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like projects_list_assignments or admin_list_users.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. With no mention of projects_list_assignments or admin_list_users, an agent cannot infer the right entry point when it needs users tied to a project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.