Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Add Issue Monitor

add_monitor

Subscribe a MantisBT user as an issue monitor to receive email updates without assigning them as handler. Deprecated: use update_issue with add_monitors instead.

Instructions

Deprecated: use update_issue with add_monitors instead — add_monitor will be removed in 2.0.0.

Add a user as a monitor (watcher) of a MantisBT issue. Monitors receive email notifications whenever the issue is updated. Returns { success, monitors } — "monitors" lists the login names now monitoring the issue.

Use it to subscribe team members to issue updates without assigning them as the handler.

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 get_project with member_query to look up valid MantisBT login names.

Input 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 get_project with member_query to discover valid login names for a project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / username / description
      Previous 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."New value: +"MantisBT login name (not the display name) of the user to add as monitor. Use get_project with member_query to discover valid login names for a project."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  3. Addedv1.10.4
  4. Removed
  5. 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."
  6. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description explicitly says re-adding an existing monitor is a no-op that creates no duplicates, which contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=false. Although it usefully discloses email notifications and return shape, the contradiction triggers the score-1 rule.

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 deprecation notice and purpose are front-loaded, and the description is generally efficient. It loses some concision by repeating parameter-discovery guidance already present in the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, notification behavior, and prerequisite lookups. The main gap is the contradictory idempotency statement and the lack of permission/auth context.

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 issue_id and username are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the same discovery guidance (list_issues/get_issue, get_project/member_query) without adding format or constraint details, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: add a user as a monitor/watcher of a MantisBT issue. It distinguishes this from assigning a handler and explicitly names the replacement sibling, update_issue with add_monitors.

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?

It states when to use the tool: subscribing team members to issue updates without making them the handler. It also front-loads the deprecation path to update_issue with add_monitors and lists the prerequisite lookup tools.

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