Skip to main content
Glama
dev-in-black

OpenProject MCP Server

by dev-in-black

remove_watcher

Remove a user from watching a specific work package in OpenProject to reduce notifications and manage watcher lists.

Instructions

Remove a user from work package watchers.

Args:
    work_package_id: Work package ID
    user_id: User ID to remove from watchers

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_package_idYes
user_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler and registration for 'remove_watcher'. This function is decorated with @mcp.tool(), defining the tool interface and delegating to the core logic in work_packages.remove_watcher.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def remove_watcher(work_package_id: int, user_id: int):
        """Remove a user from work package watchers.
    
        Args:
            work_package_id: Work package ID
            user_id: User ID to remove from watchers
        """
        return await work_packages.remove_watcher(
            work_package_id=work_package_id, user_id=user_id
        )
  • Core helper function implementing the removal of a watcher by sending a DELETE request to the OpenProject API endpoint for work package watchers.
    async def remove_watcher(work_package_id: int, user_id: int) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Remove a user from work package watchers.
    
        Args:
            work_package_id: Work package ID
            user_id: User ID to remove from watchers
    
        Returns:
            Success confirmation
        """
        client = OpenProjectClient()
    
        try:
            result = await client.delete(
                f"work_packages/{work_package_id}/watchers/{user_id}"
            )
            return result
        finally:
            await client.close()
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation action ('Remove') but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the user isn't a watcher, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. While slightly more context about behavior would be helpful, the existing text is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks crucial information about permissions, error conditions, return values, and how this operation relates to the broader watcher management context. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 explicitly documents both parameters with clear semantic meaning ('Work package ID' and 'User ID to remove from watchers'), adding significant value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. While it doesn't specify format constraints beyond what the schema provides (integer types), it clarifies what each ID represents in the context of the operation.

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 action ('Remove a user from work package watchers') and identifies the resource ('work package watchers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_watcher' by specifying removal, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other watcher-related tools beyond the obvious verb difference.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'add_watcher' is clearly the opposite operation, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., user must be a current watcher), error conditions, or when removal might be inappropriate versus other modification tools.

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