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

redmine-mcp-workflows

by Avicennasis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

redmine_list_watchers

Retrieve the list of watchers for a Redmine issue. Each watcher includes id and name.

Instructions

Return the current watcher list for an issue.

Each watcher entry has id and name. 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": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_list_watchers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description states 'Read-only' and specifies the return format (id and name), which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., issue not found) or permissions, which would enhance transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the return format (id, name) and states read-only. Given an output schema exists, the description is largely complete, but lacks error handling or prerequisite info (e.g., issue must exist).

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

Parameters3/5

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

While schema coverage is 0%, the description adds context that the tool is for an issue, implying issue_id identifies the issue. This minimally compensates; the parameter is simple and self-explanatory.

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 'Return the current watcher list for an issue' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_add_watcher and redmine_remove_watcher.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like redmine_add_watcher or redmine_remove_watcher. The read-only hint is implicit but not directly stated as a usage condition.

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