Retrieve full details of a specific Redmine issue by ID, optionally including children, attachments, relations, journals, and watchers for complete issue context.
Get full details of a specific Redmine issue by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated associations to include: children,attachments,relations,changesets,journals,watchers | |
| issue_id | Yes | The Redmine issue ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read and 'full details' hints at response completeness, but there is no mention of permission requirements, default included associations, or not-found behavior. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, scope, and identifier requirement all appear immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read-by-ID tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks only minor behavioral notes such as default includes or error conditions, which keeps it short of a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both issue_id and the include association list are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Redmine issue) with scope (full details, by ID). The 'by ID' qualifier implicitly separates it from search_issues, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies this is the lookup path when an identifier is known, contrasting with search_issues, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other or what happens with invalid IDs. Usage is implied, not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.