Skip to main content
Glama
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, with optional access-level filter, to verify permissions or build handler lists.

Instructions

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.

Use get_project_users when you need the complete user list for a project — for example, to verify who has access or to build a handler list. For name-based lookup of a single user, prefer find_project_member which supports case-insensitive substring search and is significantly faster on large projects.

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

Prerequisites: obtain project_id from list_projects.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the return shape and a prerequisite (project_id from list_projects), which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about ordering or pagination behavior for large projects.

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 purpose and return fields, then usage routing, then the access-level table and prerequisite. Slightly redundant in repeating the access-level IDs that the schema already contains, but every block is scannable and earns its place.

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, so the description correctly lists the returned fields (id, name, real_name, email, access_level) and supplies the prerequisite for obtaining project_id. For a two-parameter read tool this is complete.

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%, and both parameters are already fully documented including the access-level ID mapping and the "omit to return all users" behavior. The description restates the access-level IDs rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so it does little beyond 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("List all users with access to a specific MantisBT project") and immediately enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling find_project_member, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 exactly when to use this tool (complete user list, verifying access, building a handler list) and names the alternative for single-user lookup, including why that alternative is preferable (case-insensitive substring search, faster on large projects).

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