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 what information is included ('journals (history), attachments, and relations'), which adds useful context beyond a basic read operation. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds clarifying details about included data. There's no wasted wording, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from inclusions). Overall, it's appropriately sized and earns its place.

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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. No output schema exists, so the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly (e.g., format, fields). It mentions included data types but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like errors or auth. For a read tool with no annotations, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'issue_id' documented as 'The ID of the issue to retrieve.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain ID format, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific Redmine issue/ticket by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Redmine issue/ticket'), and scope ('by ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issues' (which likely lists multiple issues) or 'search_issues' (which might support filtering), though the 'specific' and 'by ID' wording implies a single-item lookup.

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 implies usage context: it's for retrieving a single issue when you know its ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'get_issues' for listing or 'search_issues' for filtering by other criteria) or name alternatives. The 'specific' and 'by ID' phrasing provides some guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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