Skip to main content
Glama

Find Project Member

find_project_member
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search users with access to a MantisBT project by name, display name, or email, returning up to a specified limit.

Instructions

Deprecated: use get_project with member_query instead — find_project_member will be removed in 2.0.0.

Search for users with access to a MantisBT project by name, display name, or email.

Returns up to limit matching users (default: 10, max: 100). Matching is case-insensitive substring search across name, real_name, and email fields. Omit query to list the first limit users.

Data is served from the local metadata cache when fresh; falls back to a live API call otherwise.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (default: 10, max: 100)
queryNoCase-insensitive substring to match against name, real_name, or email
project_idYesNumeric project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Addedv1.10.4
  3. Removed
  4. Addedv1.5.15

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about cache freshness and live API fallback, though it does not discuss auth or rate limits.

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?

The deprecation warning is front-loaded, followed by purpose, matching behavior, and cache behavior. The description is appropriately sized with no wasted sentences.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple search tool. It could say more about the returned user object fields, but no output schema exists and the core behavior is covered.

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 schema already documents project_id, query, and limit. The description mostly repeats the schema details, adding only the omit-query listing behavior.

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 and resource: search for users with access to a MantisBT project by name, display name, or email. It also names the replacement sibling get_project with member_query, making its deprecated role clear.

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?

Explicitly marks the tool as deprecated, names the alternative (get_project with member_query), and gives the removal version. It also explains the omit-query behavior for listing users.

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