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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Returns paginated results with issue details including status, priority, assignee, and more,' which adds some context on output format and pagination. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and output. There is no wasted text, and it avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter nuances. Without an output schema, it partially describes return values, but more context is needed for full agent understanding.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filters' and listing example fields in the output, but it does not provide additional semantics for parameters like filter combinations or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a list of Redmine issues/tickets with optional filters.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Redmine issues/tickets'), and scope ('list'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (singular) or 'search_issues', which might have overlapping functionality. This makes it clear but not fully distinct from alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filters' but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'get_issues' over 'search_issues' or 'get_issue'. Without this context, the agent lacks direction for tool selection among siblings.

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