Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Project Users

get_project_users
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all users with access to a MantisBT project, optionally filtered by minimum access level. Deprecated: use get_project with include users instead.

Instructions

Deprecated: use get_project with include: ["users"] instead — get_project_users will be removed in 2.0.0.

List all users with access to a specific MantisBT project. Returns an array of user objects, each containing id, name (login name), real_name, email, and access_level fields.

Access level IDs: 10=viewer, 25=reporter, 40=updater, 55=developer, 70=manager, 90=administrator.

Prerequisites: obtain project_id from list_projects.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesNumeric project ID — use list_projects to discover project IDs
access_levelNoReturn only users at or above this access level. Common values: 10=viewer, 25=reporter, 40=updater, 55=developer, 70=manager, 90=administrator. Omit to return all users.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / access_level / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / access_level / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Addedv1.10.4
  3. Removed
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.10.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / access_level / description
      Previous value: -"Minimum access level filter (e.g. 55 = developer, 90 = manager)"New value: +"Return only users at or above this access level. Common values: 10=viewer, 25=reporter, 40=updater, 55=developer, 70=manager, 90=administrator. Omit to return all users."
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric project ID"New value: +"Numeric project ID — use list_projects to discover project IDs"
  5. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (id, name, real_name, email, access_level) despite there being no output schema, plus the deprecation lifecycle and required prerequisite. Minor redundancy in restating the access-level ID table, which the schema already carries for the access_level param.

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?

Deprecation warning leads, followed by purpose, return shape, and prerequisites — a sensible front-loaded order with no filler. The access-level ID enumeration is repeated from the schema and could be dropped without loss, costing it the top mark.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns field-by-field, how to obtain the required ID, what the access_level values mean, and that the tool is being retired in favor of a specific alternative.

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 project_id and access_level are already fully documented, including the ID-to-role mapping and 'omit to return all users' semantics. The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema — 'obtain project_id from list_projects' repeats the schema text verbatim. 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 and resource ("List all users with access to a specific MantisBT project") and immediately names the replacement call (get_project with include: ["users"]), so an agent can distinguish it from get_project and get_project_versions without inspecting a schema. The deprecated status and removal timeline are front-loaded.

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 routes the agent to the alternative tool and the exact argument to use instead, and flags removal in 2.0.0 — a real when-not-to-use instruction. It also states a prerequisite chain (obtain project_id from list_projects), leaving little 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