Fetches memberships for a specified Redmine project, returning roles and users with support for pagination and full retrieval. Use it to identify project participants or audit access.
List project memberships (GET /projects/:id/memberships.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| fetch_all | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | project id or identifier |
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. It does disclose the HTTP method GET, implying a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result shape, or auth/permission requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and endpoint in a compact, scannable format.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and only 25% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. It leaves pagination semantics, return format, and operational behavior unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent to call confidently.
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 only 25%, with only project_id described. The description adds no meaning for limit, offset, or fetch_all, and only indirectly references project_id via the ':id' path placeholder. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 ('project memberships'), and includes the exact endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling membership mutation tools like redmine_membership_update and redmine_membership_create.
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 via the verb 'List' and the resource name, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention any alternatives/exclusions. There are no close sibling list alternatives, so the context is clear but guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.