Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-smartsheet-rm

mcp-server-smartsheet-rm

by christianclaudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Projects List Relationships Project Members

projects_list_relationships_project_members
Read-onlyIdempotent

List members for one or more projects, optionally filtering by membership level such as member, viewer, reporter, scheduler, or editor.

Instructions

List members for one or more projects (relationships endpoint).

OpenAPI: GET /relationships/project_members (getRelationshipsProjectMembers). Documented query params: membership, page, per_page. When omitted, membership defaults to member; pass another level to list those.

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": "projects_list_relationships_project_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoResponse page to return, starting at 1 (default 1).
per_pageNoMaximum items per page, up to 1000 (default 20).
membershipNoMembership level to list: member, viewer, reporter, scheduler or editor.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the documented query-param surface and the membership default behavior, which is useful context beyond annotations. It says nothing additional about result shape, whether members span multiple projects vs one, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three short blocks: purpose, endpoint identifier, then the only non-obvious parameter behavior. Nothing is padded, and the scoping constraint is front-loaded ahead of the parameter note.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values. The remaining gap is disambiguation among similarly named siblings and whether 'one or more projects' implies a project filter that isn't in the schema — a reader cannot tell how scope is actually narrowed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including valid membership levels and paging limits. The description adds only one piece of meaning beyond the schema: that an omitted 'membership' resolves to 'member'. That is a modest value-add and the 3 baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List members for one or more projects') and pins the underlying endpoint ('relationships endpoint', GET /relationships/project_members). The endpoint parenthetical hints at how it differs from the plain project-members sibling, but the description never names or contrasts with that near-identical sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives one concrete usage rule: 'membership' defaults to 'member', and you pass another level to list those. That is genuine when-to-use guidance for a parameter. However, there is no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over projects_list_project_members or projects_list_relationships_project_memberships, which is the primary selection risk given the sibling names.

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