Retrieve a specific Redmine issue by ID, with optional related data like attachments, journals, or watchers, to get full details needed for debugging or context.
Get a single issue (GET /issues/:id.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| include | No |
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only shows the HTTP method (GET), implying read-only, but doesn't describe return format, error behavior (e.g., 404), authentication needs, or any side effects. The information provided is minimal and largely derivable from the name and HTTP verb, offering little beyond that.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the REST endpoint. There is no filler, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does. Excellent conciseness.
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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details about how the 'include' parameter modifies the returned issue, the response structure, and potential errors. An agent would need to guess or infer these aspects, which is a notable gap for a tool that could benefit from such guidance.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't. The 'include' parameter's purpose and effect on the response are unexplained, though the schema provides an enum of allowed values. The 'id' parameter is implied but not described. With no description of parameters, an agent cannot infer how to use 'include' meaningfully.
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 verb (Get), the resource (issue), and the scope (single), and includes the REST endpoint. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_issues_list (multiple), redmine_issue_create/update/delete (mutations). The agent can immediately understand what this tool does and when to pick it by name and purpose.
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 ('Get a single issue') but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, such as redmine_issues_list for multiple issues, nor mention any exclusions or conditions. While the purpose is self-evident, the description lacks direct guidance on selecting this tool versus siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.