Redmine MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe key traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' in schema but not explained), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no filters are applied (e.g., retrieves all entries). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational behavior.

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 ('Get time entries logged in Redmine') and adds essential filtering information. There is no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering scope but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or pagination, which are critical for a retrieval tool with multiple parameters. Without annotations or output schema, more 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 all 6 parameters with clear descriptions and constraints (e.g., date formats, numeric ranges). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing filterable fields ('project, user, and date range'), but doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions 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 action ('Get time entries') and resource ('logged in Redmine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'log_time' (which creates entries) and 'get_issues' (which retrieves different data). However, it doesn't specify if this retrieves all entries or only filtered ones, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 through the mention of filtering options ('Can be filtered by project, user, and date range'), suggesting this tool is for retrieving time entries with optional filters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_issues' for issue-related data or 'log_time' for creating entries, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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