OpenProject MCP Server

list_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a paginated list of all users in an OpenProject instance. Use this to access user accounts and IDs for management or reference.

Instructions

List all users in the OpenProject instance

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": "list_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`offset`	No	Pagination offset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'all users' scope, which is useful context, but does not disclose whether the response is paginated, what default page size is, or whether results are limited in any way. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One concise sentence that states the action and scope with no filler. It front-loads the essential purpose and does not repeat annotation information.

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?

For a simple, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a safe annotation profile, the description is adequate. However, there is no mention of pagination behavior, default limits, or response format, and no output schema exists, so an agent may not know how many results to expect or how to iterate pages. Slight gap given the lack of output schema.

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 the single parameter (offset) is already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about offset format, bounds, or interaction with pagination, but given the schema fully covers it, baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List all users in the OpenProject instance'. It is specific about scope (all users, instance-wide) and distinct enough from the sibling get_user (which fetches a single user) and list_projects (different resource). It lacks some detail on pagination, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies use when you need all users, and the sibling list includes get_user for retrieving a specific user, so an agent could infer when to choose this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_users over get_user or other list tools, nor does it mention pagination behavior with offset.

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

Deploy Server