Skip to main content
Glama
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Add Issue Monitor

add_monitor

Subscribe a MantisBT user to issue updates as a monitor, so they receive email notifications without being assigned as the handler.

Instructions

Add a user as a monitor (watcher) of a MantisBT issue. Monitors receive email notifications whenever the issue is updated. Returns a success confirmation object.

Use add_monitor to subscribe team members to issue updates without assigning them as the handler. To unsubscribe a user, call remove_monitor with the same parameters.

Adding a user who is already a monitor is a no-op — the operation succeeds without creating duplicates.

Prerequisites: obtain issue_id from list_issues or get_issue; use find_project_member or get_project_users to look up valid MantisBT login names.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYesNumeric issue ID — use list_issues or get_issue to obtain issue IDs
usernameYesMantisBT login name (not the display name) of the user to add as monitor. Use find_project_member or get_project_users to discover valid login names for a project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Addedv1.10.4
  3. Removed
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.10.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / issue_id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric issue ID"New value: +"Numeric issue ID — use list_issues or get_issue to obtain issue IDs"
    • changedInput schema / properties / username / description
      Previous value: -"Username of the user to add as monitor"New value: +"MantisBT login name (not the display name) of the user to add as monitor. Use find_project_member or get_project_users to discover valid login names for a project."
  5. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'Adding a user who is already a monitor is a no-op — the operation succeeds without creating duplicates,' which asserts idempotent behavior, while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. Repeated identical calls produce no additional environmental effect per the description, directly contradicting the structured hint.

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?

Front-loads the core action and its effect in the first sentence, then layers behavior, alternative routing, and prerequisites in short scannable paragraphs. No filler; every sentence (notifications, remove_monitor, no-op, prerequisites) carries operational value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect of the call, the return shape ('success confirmation object'), duplicate handling, the inverse operation, and how to source both required values. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (issue_id, username) are already fully documented in the schema, including the login-name vs display-name distinction and the discovery tools. The description's prerequisite section restates the same guidance without adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a user as a monitor (watcher) of a MantisBT issue') and immediately explains the consequence (email notifications on updates). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling remove_monitor, which it names explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('subscribe team members to issue updates without assigning them as the handler'), names the inverse operation with its routing condition ('To unsubscribe a user, call remove_monitor with the same parameters'), and lists prerequisites for obtaining valid issue_id and username values.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools