Retrieve Redmine users with optional filters for name, status, group, and pagination. Admin privileges may be required.
List users (GET /users.json). Admin may be required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| group_id | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and an admin requirement, which is useful. But it omits critical behavior: it does not indicate that this is a read-only operation (though GET implies it), does not describe pagination or response format, and does not disclose any side effects. The single line of disclosure is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words. However, it is so brief that it leaves many gaps, but conciseness itself is good—though it could be argued it is under-specified rather than concise, the sentence is structured clearly.
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?
The tool is moderately complex with six optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description only provides the endpoint and an admin hint, leaving the agent without knowledge of parameter semantics, response shape, pagination behavior, or when to use the fetch_all flag. This is severely incomplete for effective invocation.
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 schema has six parameters with zero description coverage. The description adds nothing about any of the parameters (name, limit, offset, status, group_id, fetch_all). It does not even hint at their purpose or how they affect the list. With 0% coverage, the description fails entirely to compensate.
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 clearly states the action 'List users' and identifies the resource via the API endpoint '/users.json'. It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools that operate on single users (redmine_user_get) or other resources (projects, issues, etc.). The verb and resource are specific and 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?
The description hints at a prerequisite ('Admin may be required') which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., redmine_user_get for a single user, or other list tools). The routing is implied by naming but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.