Retrieve all project memberships with principal and role names. Identify who has access to a project and their assigned permissions.
List memberships for a project, including principal and role names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.3.3v0.3.0v0.2.3Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$defs": {
- "MembershipSummary": {
- "properties": {
- "can_update": {
- "title": "Can Update",
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "can_update_immediately": {
- "title": "Can Update Immediately",
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "id": {
- "title": "Id",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "principal_id": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Principal Id"
- },
- "principal_name": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Principal Name"
- },
- "project_id": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Project Id"
- },
- "project_name": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Project Name"
- },
- "role_ids": {
- "items": {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "title": "Role Ids",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "role_names": {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "title": "Role Names",
- "type": "array"
- },
- "url": {
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "principal_id",
- "principal_name",
- "project_id",
- "project_name",
- "role_ids",
- "role_names",
- "can_update",
- "can_update_immediately",
- "url"
- ],
- "title": "MembershipSummary",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "results": {
- "items": {
- "$ref": "#/$defs/MembershipSummary"
- },
- "title": "Results",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "count",
- "results"
- ],
- "title": "MembershipListResult",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden. It says 'List... including principal and role names', implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether it includes nested memberships, pagination, or permission requirements. It does not contradict annotations (none provided), but it is minimal.
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?
The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It is efficiently written with no filler. However, it is under-specified, so while concise, it misses key details; still, conciseness itself is good.
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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the parameter semantics and possibly common use cases. With 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is inadequate to fully understand the tool's behavior, especially given the need to differentiate from sibling tools. It is not complete enough to be reliably invoked.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the 'project' parameter beyond its name and type in the schema. The description says 'for a project' implicitly, but does not specify format, examples, or how to identify the project (ID? slug?). Since the tool has only one parameter, the description could easily add context; it fails to do so.
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?
The description 'List memberships for a project, including principal and role names' clearly states the action (list), the resource (memberships), and the scope (for a project). It also indicates the return includes principal and role names, which adds specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like get_membership (single) and list_projects (different resource).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Siblings include get_membership, list_roles, list_projects, but the description does not explain when to choose this list over get_membership or any filtering/ordering options. It gives no context on use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jtauschl/openproject-ce-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server