List all issue statuses from a Redmine instance to identify available workflow states for tracking and managing issues.
List issue statuses (GET /issue_statuses.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The explicit 'GET' method and 'List' wording indicate a read-only operation, but authentication requirements, pagination, and response format are not disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys both the human-readable action and the exact API endpoint with zero waste.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description provides enough to invoke the tool confidently. It does not describe the response array, and there is no output schema, but the resource name and endpoint make the result shape reasonably inferable.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 applies for no parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('issue statuses') and includes the exact endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_issues_list and redmine_projects_list.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no contextual conditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.