Retrieve the list of users assigned to a specific Backlog project by providing its project ID or project key.
Returns list of users in a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345) | |
| projectKey | No | The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result size expectations, and no note that the lookup is scoped to a single project's membership.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-shape information and does not — no word on what a 'user' object contains or whether results are paginated. Combined with the unresolved projectId-vs-projectKey question from the optional parameters, an agent lacks enough context to call this confidently.
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%, so both projectId and projectKey are documented in the schema, giving baseline 3. However, the description misses a meaningful semantic point: the schema marks zero required parameters, leaving an agent unsure whether one identifier, either, or both must be supplied — this is exactly the kind of clarification a description should add and it does not.
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?
States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Returns list of users in a specific project'). This implicitly separates it from the broader get_users sibling, though the distinction is never made explicit.
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 versus get_users (list all users) or get_myself. The agent must infer that this tool is the project-scoped variant from the name and resource alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.