Retrieve enumeration values for a specified type, such as issue priorities or time entry activities, from Redmine.
List enumeration values (GET /enumerations/:type.json) e.g. issue_priorities, time_entry_activities, document_categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Enumeration type slug, e.g. issue_priorities, time_entry_activities |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state 'GET', which signals a read-only operation without destructive side effects, and the examples give some context. However, it fails to disclose response format, pagination, permission requirements, error behavior, or the fact that this tool only lists and cannot modify enumerations.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with the action first, the endpoint in parentheses, and three concrete examples. Every element earns its place; there is no filler, repetition, or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter usage. The endpoint and examples round out the picture. It omits return-value details, but the word 'list' makes it clear an array is returned, and there are no annotations to conflict.
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?
The input schema already provides a 100%-coverage description for the single 'type' parameter, including examples. The description adds the endpoint template showing 'type' as a path segment, but that is already implicit. Since the schema covers the parameter fullyahan, the baseline 3 is appropriate and the description does not add material new meaning.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('enumeration values'), names the endpoint, and gives concrete examples (issue_priorities, time_entry_activities, document_categories). This clearly tells the agent what the tool does and distinguishes it from other list tools like redmine_trackers_list because it points to the enumeration API and the 'type' path parameter.
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 description implies usage for retrieving enumerations and the examples hint at common types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other list tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. There is no guidance on validating the type against a known set or handling invalid types, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.