Search Redmine content by query to find issues, projects, wiki pages, messages, and other resources. Filter with project scope, type, and pagination to locate relevant results.
Search Redmine (GET /search.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project_id | No | limit to project |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. 'GET /search.json' does signal a read-only operation, but nothing is disclosed about pagination, default limit, result shape, authentication requirements, or how scope/project_id affect behavior.
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 loses a point only because it is too terse to carry much operational value.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line endpoint reference is insufficient. The agent knows this is a search endpoint but lacks the search semantics, scope options, pagination behavior, and return format needed to call it reliably.
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 20%, so the description needs to compensate, but it adds no parameter context. The five parameters (q, limit, scope, offset, project_id) remain effectively undocumented beyond the schema's minimal type constraints.
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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('Redmine') and names the exact API endpoint, so an agent can tell this is the global search tool. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list/get tools, but no sibling is named 'search', so ambiguity is low.
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 verb 'Search' implies the tool is for ad-hoc queries across Redmine rather than fetching a known resource by ID, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling list tools or mentions exclusions/alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.