projects_add_memberAdd a user to a Redmine project and assign one or more roles, granting project access with the specified permissions.
Adds a user to a project with the given roles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User id to add. | |
| role_ids | Yes | Role ids to grant. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id or identifier. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when the user is already a member (relevant given the idempotent claim), whether permissions are required, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (3 required params, no nesting, no output schema) and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is minimally adequate. Still, it omits duplicate-member behavior and permission prerequisites that would matter for a membership mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'with the given roles' only loosely restates role_ids and adds no format or constraint detail (e.g. that at least one role is required, per minItems).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Adds) and resource (a user to a project) plus the role payload, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like projects_update_member or projects_remove_member, though the name largely does that work.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though projects_update_member and projects_remove_member sit directly alongside it in the sibling list. An agent gets no help choosing between adding and updating a membership.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.