list_languagesRetrieve the current user's MantisBT language; deprecated—use get_current_user's language field instead.
Deprecated: use get_current_user (field "language") instead — list_languages will be removed in 2.0.0.
Despite its name, MantisBT's GET /lang returns only the language of the current user ({ strings, language }), not a list of all languages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.10.4v1.5.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds real value: the deprecation lifecycle and, critically, the actual response shape ({ strings, language }), which contradicts what the tool name implies. That prevents an agent from assuming it returns an enumerable list. No output schema exists, so this disclosure matters, though a note on error behavior or whether strings is a map would make it complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences: the deprecation and replacement come first, followed by the name-accuracy caveat. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent needs: a migration path and the true return shape. Nothing required to call or interpret it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing the description could add about arguments, and it correctly signals the tool is a no-input call by describing the response rather than inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states what the tool actually does — calls GET /lang and returns the current user's language payload ({ strings, language }) — and warns that the name is misleading. It also names the sibling that supersedes it, so an agent can distinguish it from get_current_user without opening a schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Front-loads 'Deprecated: use get_current_user (field "language") instead' with a concrete removal version (2.0.0). Both when-not-to-use and the exact alternative are stated, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.