Skip to main content
Glama

List project memberships

list_memberships
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify which users, groups, or placeholders have access to a project and their roles; filter by project or principal to audit access.

Instructions

List who has access to which project, and with which roles.

Use it before granting or revoking access ("does she already have a role here?"), to audit a project's member list, or to see which projects a principal can reach. Called with no arguments it pages through every membership the authenticated account may see, which on a large instance is a lot — filter.

Returns the standard list envelope: items of {id, project, principal {id,name,type}, roles[], created_at, updated_at} plus pagination{total,page,page_size,has_more}.

Pitfalls. The id in each row is the membership id — the handle for update_membership and delete_membership — not the principal id and not the project id; mixing them up revokes the wrong access. A person can also reach a project through a group membership, so an empty result for principal_id does not prove they have no access. Memberships say who may act, not what they may do: roles carry the permissions.

Cross-references: list_roles for role ids and their permissions; create_membership / update_membership / delete_membership to change access (admin-gated: hidden unless the server sets OPENPROJECT_MCP_ADMIN_TOOLS=1); search_principals for principal ids; list_permissions for what the current user may do.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page number.
page_sizeNoMemberships per page, 1-100.
project_idNoOnly memberships in this project. Numeric id or the URL identifier (an identifier costs one extra lookup). Combine with principal_id to check one person's roles in one project.
principal_idNoOnly memberships held by this principal — a user, group or placeholder-user id from search_principals. Use it to answer 'which projects can this person see'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sumsNoPresent only when show_sums was requested.
itemsNoThe page of results.
notesNoDegradation markers: capped aggregations, unavailable modules, …
groupsNoPresent only when group_by was requested.
paginationYesTotal/page/page_size/has_more.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior, the membership-id pitfall, the group-membership nuance, and the distinction between memberships and permissions. It also flags that mutation tools are admin-gated. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but well-structured into summary, use cases, return shape, pitfalls, and cross-references, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every section carries operational value for an agent, so the length is earned.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers invocation behavior, return envelope, pitfalls, and related tools. Nothing essential for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance: no-argument calls page through every membership and should be filtered, and principal_id/project_id map directly to common use cases. It does not need to restate schema details, and the added context justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List who has access to which project, and with which roles.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings like list_roles and list_permissions, and the cross-references reinforce what this tool is not.

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?

It explicitly enumerates when to use the tool: before granting/revoking access, auditing a project's member list, or checking which projects a principal can reach. It also names alternatives (list_roles, search_principals, list_permissions) and warns to filter because no-argument calls page through everything.

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