@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_projects_member_stats

Retrieve project member statistics by project ID, providing insights into team roles and participation to support project management decisions.

Instructions

Get project member stats.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_projects_member_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get project member stats.' While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not disclose what the stats include, whether authentication is required, or any response shape, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no filler or repetition. However, it is so terse that it barely adds information beyond the tool name, making it efficient but minimally informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description offers little to help an agent understand what 'member stats' actually returns or how it differs from related stats endpoints. The tool is simple (one parameter), but the ambiguity around the result content and sibling differentiation makes this incomplete.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter, 'id', which is fully described as 'Project ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already provides complete parameter information, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('project member stats'), which is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named sibling tools like taiga_projects_stats or taiga_projects_issues_stats, so it lacks differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no context beyond the bare description. The name implies usage for member stats, but the description itself provides no explicit or implicit usage direction.

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

Deploy Server