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

mcp-server-smartsheet-rm

by christianclaudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Projects List User Project Memberships

projects_list_user_project_memberships
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists a user's project memberships and supports optional date-range and membership-level filters, helping you review project access and assignments.

Instructions

List project memberships for a user.

OpenAPI: GET /users/{user_id}/project_memberships (getUsersUserIdProjectMemberships). Optional from / to are YYYY-MM-DD date filters (tool args from_date / to_date). When omitted, membership defaults to member; pass another level to list those.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "projects_list_user_project_memberships"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoResponse page to return, starting at 1 (default 1).
to_dateNoOptional YYYY-MM-DD end date, sent as ``to``.
user_idYesID of the user.
per_pageNoMaximum items per page, up to 1000 (default 20).
from_dateNoOptional YYYY-MM-DD start date, sent as ``from``.
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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral fact beyond them: when `membership` is omitted the result set is silently narrowed to 'member' level, and non-member levels must be requested explicitly — exactly the kind of default that changes what an agent sees.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter notes following logically. The 'OpenAPI: GET ...' line is somewhat boilerplate but gives a durable identifier, so little of the text is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple (one required param, flat schema, output schema present so return shape needn't be described), and the description covers purpose, date-filter format, and the membership default. Pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage but is the one remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add two useful mappings beyond the schema — that from_date/to_date are transmitted as the API's `from`/`to` and must be YYYY-MM-DD — but page/per_page remain solely schema-documented, so the added value is incremental rather than substantial.

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 project memberships for a user', reinforced by the endpoint mapping GET /users/{user_id}/project_memberships. It is clear what it returns, but it never explicitly contrasts with the nearby sibling projects_list_project_members (members of a project) so an agent must infer the user-centric vs project-centric 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?

Usage context is implied by the required user_id and the optional date filters, and the note that omitting `membership` lists only 'member' level is genuine operational guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative for the case where the agent wants members of a project rather than memberships of a user.

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