Skip to main content
Glama

list_work_packages

List OpenProject work packages using structured filters for status, assignee, priority, dates, and more. Sort, group, and select specific fields to retrieve exactly the data you need.

Instructions

List work packages with structured filters and no free-text query requirement.

version_status filters by the status of a work package's assigned version: one of 'open', 'closed', or 'locked'.

assignee filters by any user (username, id, or "me"). assignee_me takes precedence.

status/priority filter by exact OpenProject status/priority name or numeric ID (case-insensitive) — not meta-values like 'open'/'closed'; set open_only=true to restrict results to not-closed work packages instead.

Date filters accept YYYY-MM-DD format:

  • created_on/updated_on/due_on: exact date match

  • created_between/updated_between/due_between: inclusive date range [start, end] Cannot specify both _on and _between for the same field.

sort_by accepts a list of sort criteria in format "field:direction" (e.g., ["status:desc", "priority:asc"]). Direction defaults to "asc" if omitted. Common sortable fields: id, subject, status, priority, type, assignee, author, created_at, updated_at, start_date, due_date.

group_by accepts a field name to group results by (e.g., "status", "assignee"). Common groupable fields: status, priority, type, assignee, author, version, category.

select restricts each result row to the given fields (e.g. ["id", "subject", "status"]); an invalid name returns the allowed set. Common fields: id, display_id, subject, type, status, priority, assignee, project, version, parent_id, parent_display_id, start_date, due_date, estimated_time, spent_time, created_at, updated_at, author, category, description, schedule_manually, derived_start_date, derived_due_date, percentage_done, derived_percentage_done, readonly, ignore_non_working_days. parent_display_id is only populated on OpenProject 17.5+ (semantic mode); it stays null on older/classic instances even when parent_id is set.

limit is capped at OPENPROJECT_MAX_PAGE_SIZE (default 50); pass the returned next_offset as the next call's offset to page past the cap. total is the real matching count only when the query is provably restricted to OPENPROJECT_READ_PROJECTS server-side — scope is unrestricted, an explicit project was given, or (no project, restricted scope) a server-side filter for the resolved allowed project IDs was sent. Otherwise total falls back to this page's item count, and next_offset/truncated are based on whether this page came back full rather than the server's own total, so nothing here ever reveals how many matches exist in projects you can't see. Page until next_offset is null either way.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo
limitNo
due_onNo
offsetNo
selectNo
statusNo
projectNo
sort_byNo
versionNo
assigneeNo
group_byNo
priorityNo
open_onlyNo
created_onNo
updated_onNo
assignee_meNo
due_betweenNo
version_statusNo
created_betweenNo
updated_betweenNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: pagination cap, total count fallback, version-specific parent_display_id behavior, assignee_me precedence, and sort/group/select mechanics. No contradictions with annotations (none provided). The description is highly transparent for a complex tool.

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?

Despite its length (20+ sentences), the description is well-structured: first sentence provides overall purpose, followed by parameter-specific sections. Each section is focused and front-loaded. The verbosity is justified by the number of parameters and behavioral details, making it efficient for the complexity.

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?

The description covers all major behavioral aspects: input constraints, pagination, total count behavior, version-specific field behavior, and parameter interactions. Given 20 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it provides a complete understanding of tool behavior for effective invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does so thoroughly: for each of 20 parameters, it explains format, allowed values, constraints, and examples (e.g., date YYYY-MM-DD, sort 'field:direction', select invalid returns allowed set). This adds immense value beyond the schema titles.

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 tool lists work packages with structured filters and explicitly notes 'no free-text query requirement,' distinguishing it from search_work_packages. The verb 'list' and resource 'work packages' are specific, and the structured filter emphasis differentiates from other listing tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (structured filters vs free-text) and details parameter constraints (e.g., assignee_me precedence, date filter mutual exclusivity). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide direct alternatives beyond the free-text hint. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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