Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by GonzaloRando03
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_wiki_page

Retrieve the content of a wiki page from a Redmine project by its title and project ID. Returns the page text in Textile or Markdown format.

Instructions

Gets the content of a wiki page by its title. Returns the page text in Textile/Markdown format.

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>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "get_wiki_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID (numeric) or identifier (string)
titleYesWiki page title (used as slug in the URL)
includeNoInclude additional data: attachments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds the return format detail but does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling, or limitations. The read-only nature is implied but not stated explicitly.

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 redundant information. The action is front-loaded: 'Gets the content of a wiki page by its title.'

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format and uses the title for lookup. It misses mentioning the optional 'include' parameter for attachments, but the schema covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond 'by its title' matching the title parameter. This meets the baseline for parameter semantics.

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 tool retrieves wiki page content by title and specifies the return format (Textile/Markdown). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_wiki_pages or get_wiki_page_version.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_wiki_pages or get_wiki_page_version. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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