Redmine MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and that it returns 'project details', which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific details are included in the response, leaving significant gaps for 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.

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

The description is two concise sentences that efficiently state the core functionality and key behavioral trait (pagination). It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior.

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?

For a read-only list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and pagination but lacks details on response format, error handling, and usage context relative to siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and offset). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all Redmine projects'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_project' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple projects, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'get_issues' beyond the resource type.

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 like 'get_project' (for a single project) or 'search_issues' (which might filter projects indirectly). It mentions pagination but doesn't explain when paginated listing is preferred over other retrieval methods.

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