GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_project_member_list

Read-only

Lists project members in GitFlic to help you review team access and membership. Retrieve participant details for a specific project.

Instructions

List project members.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_project_member_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no note on what the listing includes (roles, owners, groups), and no indication of the notable idempotentHint=false on a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here costs information the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the required project identifier and the shape of the returned member list. Instead it leaves the only undocumented parameter and the response contents unexplained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With roughly 67% schema coverage, the 'raw' and 'fields' parameters are documented in the schema, but the required 'project' parameter has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining what form the project identifier takes or what 'fields' selection means for this endpoint.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description has a specific verb ('List') and resource ('project members'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate from the sibling gitflic_project_member_invite, which operates on the same resource, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement (e.g., needing a project identifier or access rights), and no mention of alternatives such as the member-invite sibling. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server