Retrieve all watchers of a specific OpenProject work package by ID or display ID, returning selected user fields such as ID, login, and name.
List watchers of a work package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| select | No | Fields to return; a requested unset field comes back as null. Allowed: id, login, name. | |
| work_package_id | Yes | Work package id (e.g. 952) or display id (e.g. "PROJ-51"), not the bare number 51. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.4v0.4.0v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.2.3Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$defs": {
- "WatcherSummary": {
- "properties": {
- "id": {
- "title": "Id",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "login": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Login"
- },
- "name": {
- "title": "Name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "url": {
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "name",
- "login",
- "url"
- ],
- "title": "WatcherSummary",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "title": "Count",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "results": {
- "items": {
- "$ref": "#/$defs/WatcherSummary"
- },
- "title": "Results",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "count",
- "results"
- ],
- "title": "WatcherListResult",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination, ordering, or what happens when a work package has no watchers.
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?
A single short sentence with zero filler and the key noun phrase front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, little more is strictly required, and there is no output schema to explain. Still, the description leaves an agent without any sense of result shape or scale (watcher count, ordering), which a slightly richer sentence could have supplied.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains the id-vs-display-id distinction and the allowed select fields. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('List watchers of a work package'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate from the related sibling set_work_package_watcher, which an agent might reasonably confuse with it when deciding between reading and mutating watcher state.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this rather than set_work_package_watcher, nor any prerequisite or context about permissions needed to view watchers. The usage is only inferable from the tool name, not from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.