Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by GonzaloRando03
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_project

Retrieve a Redmine project's details by numeric ID or string identifier, optionally including trackers, categories, time entry activities, enabled modules, and issue custom fields.

Instructions

Gets details of a project by its numeric ID or string identifier.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProject ID (numeric) or identifier (string)
includeNoComma-separated: trackers, issue_categories, time_entry_activities, enabled_modules, issue_custom_fields

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only fetch operation but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or information. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description should indicate the return format (e.g., project object). It only states 'Gets details', which is vague. For a simple tool with 2 params, it's minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., id type, include options). No extra value is added.

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 the verb 'Gets' and the resource 'details of a project', specifying two types of identifiers (numeric ID or string identifier). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_projects, other get_* tools). The context is implied but not clarified.

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