Skip to main content
Glama

Get Project Users

get_project_users
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all users who have access to a specific MantisBT project, optionally filtered by minimum access level.

Instructions

List all users with access to a specific MantisBT project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesNumeric project ID
access_levelNoMinimum access level filter (e.g. 55 = developer, 90 = manager)

Implementation Reference

  • Registration and handler implementation for get_project_users tool in src/tools/projects.ts
    server.registerTool(
      'get_project_users',
      {
        title: 'Get Project Users',
        description: 'List all users with access to a specific MantisBT project.',
        inputSchema: z.object({
          project_id: z.coerce.number().int().positive().describe('Numeric project ID'),
          access_level: z.coerce.number().int().optional().describe('Minimum access level filter (e.g. 55 = developer, 90 = manager)'),
        }),
        annotations: {
          readOnlyHint: true,
          destructiveHint: false,
          idempotentHint: true,
        },
      },
      async ({ project_id, access_level }) => {
        try {
          const params: Record<string, string | number | boolean | undefined> = {};
          if (access_level !== undefined) params.access_level = access_level;
          const result = await client.get<{ users: MantisUser[] }>(`projects/${project_id}/users`, params);
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.users ?? result, null, 2) }],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          const msg = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: errorText(msg) }], isError: true };
        }
      }
    );
Behavior3/5

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by using the word 'List', confirming the safe, non-destructive nature. However, it adds no information about error handling (e.g., invalid project_id), pagination, or the structure of returned user data.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. The action ('List') is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the schema coverage is complete, the description fails to mention the optional access_level filtering capability, which is a key behavioral feature. Additionally, with no output schema provided, the description omits what user data fields are returned (e.g., usernames, IDs, access levels).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters including helpful examples for access_level (55 = developer). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('users with access'), specifying the scope ('specific MantisBT project'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'find_project_member', leaving potential ambiguity about when to use listing versus finding.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_project_member', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., valid project_id) or when to apply the optional access_level filter.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dpesch/mantisbt-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server