Redmine MCP Server

get_wiki_page_version

Retrieve a specific version of a Redmine wiki page to view its history and changes.

Instructions

Gets a specific version of a wiki page. Useful for viewing page history.

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>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "get_wiki_page_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID (numeric) or identifier (string)
`title`	Yes	Wiki page title
`version`	Yes	Version number of the wiki page
`include`	No	Include additional data: attachments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Gets', implying a read operation, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or that it is read-only. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences long and directly states the action and use case. No unnecessary words, though slightly more detail could be added without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what data is returned. It does not mention return format or fields. The optional 'include' parameter (attachments) is not explained. The tool's purpose is clear but the description lacks completeness for an agent.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'Gets' and the resource 'specific version of a wiki page', and implies its use for viewing history. It distinguishes from siblings like get_wiki_page (current version) and list_wiki_pages, though not explicitly.

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?

The description only says 'Useful for viewing page history', which vaguely implies when to use. It does not specify when not to use, nor does it mention alternative tools like get_wiki_page or list_wiki_pages.

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

Deploy Server