Redmine MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is for 'adding comments' which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., does it return the updated issue?). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds valuable usage context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or response format, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (issue_id and notes) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or examples, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a comment/note') and target resource ('to an existing Redmine issue'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_issue or update_issue. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_issue which might also allow commenting, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.

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?

The description provides clear context: it's for 'a simple way to add comments without updating other issue fields,' implying this tool should be used when only commenting is needed versus update_issue which might modify other fields. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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