Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
redmine-mcp-workflows

redmine-mcp-workflows

by Avicennasis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

redmine_list_memberships

Fetch paginated list of members for a Redmine project using project ID or slug. Control page size and offset to navigate results.

Instructions

List project members (paginated).

Args: project_id: numeric id or identifier slug. limit: page size (capped at 100). offset: skip the first N results.

Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_list_memberships"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description declares read-only behavior and notes the page size limit (capped at 100). This provides useful transparency, though it could also mention ordering or other constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise, starting with the purpose and listing parameters briefly. Every sentence adds value, and the 'Read-only' line is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, pagination, and read-only nature. With an output schema present, return value details are not needed. Missing details like default sorting or scope are minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains all three parameters: project_id as numeric id or slug, limit as page size capped at 100, offset as skipping N results. This adds meaning beyond the input schema, which has no descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List project members (paginated).' which is a specific verb-resource pair. Among siblings like add_membership, update_membership, and remove_membership, it is distinct in purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Read-only' hint implies it is for viewing, but no comparison to similar list tools or mutation siblings is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools