Add a user as a watcher to a Redmine issue by providing the issue ID and user ID, so they receive notifications for updates and changes.
Add a watcher to an issue (POST /issues/:id/watchers.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| issue_id | Yes |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation is a POST and adds a watcher, but it does not explain permission requirements, whether duplicate watchers are rejected or ignored, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful transparency gap.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema details.
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?
The tool is simple with only two required integer parameters and no output schema, so the description is largely adequate for basic invocation. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral context, especially with no annotations, leaves the definition only minimally complete.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. It does not explicitly map issue_id to the endpoint's :id or user_id to the watcher being added. While the parameter names are relatively self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a watcher to an issue.' It also includes the exact API endpoint, making the operation unambiguous and easy to distinguish from siblings like redmine_issue_remove_watcher.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to related tools such as redmine_issue_remove_watcher, redmine_issue_update, or redmine_membership_update. The only implied usage is the literal 'add a watcher' action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.