Skip to main content
Glama
dev-in-black

OpenProject MCP Server

by dev-in-black
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

get_available_assignees

Retrieve users eligible for assignment to work packages in a specified OpenProject project to facilitate task delegation.

Instructions

Get list of users who can be assigned to work packages in a project.

Args:
    project_id: Project identifier or ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/openproject_mcp/tools/work_packages.py:425-441 (handler)
    Core implementation of get_available_assignees tool: fetches available assignees from OpenProject API for a given project using OpenProjectClient.
    async def get_available_assignees(project_id: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
    """Get list of users who can be assigned to work packages in a project.

    Args:
        project_id: Project identifier or ID

    Returns:
        Collection of available assignee users
    """
    client = OpenProjectClient()

    try:
        result = await client.get(f"projects/{project_id}/available_assignees")
        return result
    finally:
        await client.close()
  • src/openproject_mcp/server.py:127-134 (registration)
    MCP tool registration and handler wrapper that delegates to the work_packages module implementation.
    @mcp.tool()
async def get_available_assignees(project_id: str):
    """Get list of users who can be assigned to work packages in a project.

    Args:
        project_id: Project identifier or ID
    """
    return await work_packages.get_available_assignees(project_id=project_id)

Tool Definition Quality

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly, and the 'Args' section efficiently documents the parameter without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. For a read operation with simple inputs, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'project_id: Project identifier or ID' clarifies that this is a string identifier for a project. With 0% schema description coverage (schema only has title 'Project Id'), the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose, earning a high score despite the low baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get list of users who can be assigned to work packages in a project.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('list of users'), and context ('in a project'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_project' or 'get_work_package', which might also return user-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'list_work_packages' that might overlap in functionality. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dev-in-black/openproject-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server