Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Project

get_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one MantisBT project's master data and, optionally, its categories, users, and versions in a single call using the project ID from list_projects.

Instructions

Get one MantisBT project: its master data (id, name, description, status, enabled, view_state, access_level, subprojects) and, on request, its categories, users and versions in the same call.

  • include: any of "categories", "users", "versions" (default: none — master data only).

  • categories: names come without the "[All Projects] " prefix, ready for create_issue / update_issue.

  • users: id, name (login name), real_name, email, access_level. access_level returns only users at or above that level (10=viewer, 25=reporter, 40=updater, 55=developer, 70=manager, 90=administrator) and implies include "users".

  • member_query: case-insensitive substring search in login name, real name and email; returns all matching users. Implies include "users".

  • versions: id, name, released, obsolete, timestamp. obsolete=true adds obsolete versions, inherit=true adds versions of parent projects; either implies include "versions".

Users come from the local metadata cache when it is fresh and no access_level is given. Prerequisites: obtain project_id from list_projects.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeNoRelated data to add: "categories", "users", "versions"
inheritNoAlso return versions inherited from parent projects; implies include "versions"
obsoleteNoAlso return obsolete versions; implies include "versions"
project_idYesNumeric project ID — use list_projects to discover project IDs
access_levelNoOnly users at or above this access level; implies include "users"
member_queryNoCase-insensitive substring to find users by login name, real name or email; implies include "users"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.15.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: categories names are stripped of the '[All Projects] ' prefix, users come from the local metadata cache when fresh and no access_level is given, and the access_level filter semantics. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a tight bulleted list where each line carries distinct information. Slightly redundant with schema descriptions in the implies-include notes, keeping it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields for master data, categories, users (id, name, real_name, email, access_level) and versions (id, name, released, obsolete, timestamp). Combined with the cache and filtering notes, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding meaning the schema lacks — the access_level numeric mapping (10=viewer ... 90=administrator), the 'default: none' behavior of include, and the fact that member_query searches three fields. It still repeats the 'implies include' notes already present in the schema.

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 ('Get one MantisBT project') and enumerates exactly what is returned (master data plus optionally categories/users/versions). This clearly distinguishes it from list_projects and from the narrower get_project_users / get_project_versions / get_project_categories siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly notes the prerequisite 'obtain project_id from list_projects' and explains how the optional sub-resources are triggered via include. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this aggregated call over the dedicated get_project_users/get_project_categories siblings, leaving that routing to inference.

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