Retrieve a list of Redmine projects with filters for status, pagination, and included details. Use this to fetch project data for integration or display.
List projects (GET /projects.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| fetch_all | 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 present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only indicates GET/read-only and gives no information about pagination behavior, default limits, authentication requirements, or the shape of the returned object.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse to support the richer parameter set.
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 five-parameter endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, this description is the bare minimum. It tells the agent the endpoint but not what to expect from status/include/fetch_all, leaving the agent to guess at semantics.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and five parameters (limit, offset, status, include, fetch_all), the description mentions none of them. An agent cannot determine what 'include' supports or how fetch_all interacts with limit/offset.
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 names the operation explicitly ('List projects') and gives the endpoint, which clearly identifies a read-only collection operation. The verb 'List' differentiates it from sibling single-project tools like redmine_project_get and from mutation tools.
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 usage is implied by the tool name and the verb: call it to obtain a collection of projects. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over redmine_project_get, nor does it mention pagination or filtering strategies for large result sets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.