Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dpesch

MantisBT MCP Server

by dpesch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Remove Issue Monitor

remove_monitor
DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a user from a MantisBT issue's monitor list so they stop receiving update email notifications. Deprecated: use update_issue's monitor removal option instead.

Instructions

Deprecated: use update_issue with remove_monitors instead — remove_monitor will be removed in 2.0.0.

Remove a user from the monitor list of a MantisBT issue. The user will no longer receive email notifications for updates to this issue.

Returns { success, removed, monitors } — "monitors" lists the login names still monitoring the issue. If the user was not a monitor, the call succeeds with removed=false and nothing is changed.

Removing another user requires the monitor_delete_others_bug_threshold access level; without it the call returns an error.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYesNumeric issue ID
usernameYesMantisBT login name (not the display name) of the monitor to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / username / description
      Previous value: -"Username of the monitor to remove"New value: +"MantisBT login name (not the display name) of the monitor to remove"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  3. Addedv1.10.4
  4. Removed
  5. First observedv1.5.6

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the return shape ({ success, removed, monitors }), the idempotent behavior when the user is not a monitor (removed=false, no change), and the authorization requirement with error behavior, adding substantial context.

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 front-loaded with the deprecation warning (most critical for current use), followed by a clear explanation, return details, and prerequisites. Every sentence is purposeful and no information is redundant.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the annotations and schema together with the description provide complete context: what the tool does, how to use it or not, return values, edge cases, and authorization needs. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it reinforces the action but does not clarify parameter formats or constraints further.

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 clearly states the specific action (remove a user) and resource (monitor list of a MantisBT issue), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling add_monitor by focusing on removal and deprecation in favor of update_issue.

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 marks the tool as deprecated and directs to update_issue with remove_monitors instead, providing a clear when-not-to-use and alternative. Additionally, it specifies the access level required for removing other users, giving a prerequisite condition.

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