Retrieve Redmine issues by applying filters, pagination, and fetch_all to merge pages.
List issues (GET /issues.json). Supports filters and optional fetch_all to merge pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| query_id | No | ||
| author_id | No | ||
| fetch_all | No | ||
| status_id | No | ||
| project_id | No | project id or identifier | |
| tracker_id | No | ||
| category_id | No | ||
| subproject_id | No | ||
| assigned_to_id | No | ||
| fixed_version_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'List' and the fetch_all page-merge behavior, but lacks details on default pagination, response format, or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The endpoint is front-loaded and the only extra behavioral detail is included directly.
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?
A 15-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs far more explanation. The description does not describe the response, default sorting/limits, or the interplay of fetch_all with offset/limit, so an agent would struggle.
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 coverage is only 7% (just project_id). The description adds a generic 'Supports filters' and explains fetch_all's purpose, but leaves the other 14 parameters semantically unexplained.
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 and resource ('List issues') and explicitly names the REST endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like redmine_issue_get, but the action and resource are unambiguous.
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?
Describes the tool's capability (filters, fetch_all page merging) but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over redmine_issue_get or other list tools, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.