projects_list_membershipsList the members of a Redmine project with their roles by project ID to check team access and permissions.
Lists the members of a project with their roles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that roles are included in the result; it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, which is the main behavioral gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the key noun (members, roles) up front. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it is arguably too terse to earn a 5.
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?
For a simple read-only list operation with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient, but it omits pagination semantics and any hint about the shape of a membership record. Nothing is misleading, but an agent gets no help beyond the bare purpose.
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 only 33%: project_id is documented, but limit and offset are not described anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all (no mention of paging, defaults, or the project_id format), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource (lists members of a project) and clarifies the payload includes roles. It is distinguishable from siblings like projects_list and projects_get, though it never explicitly names them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from projects_list_categories, projects_get, or the member-mutation siblings (projects_add_member/update_member/remove_member), nor what prerequisite (project_id) is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.