Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by compasify
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

getFiles

List files from a Redmine project by specifying project ID and choosing JSON or XML output.

Instructions

List files

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pathParams": "<pathParams>"
    },
    "name": "getFiles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathParamsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.4

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers none. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether pagination exists, or any side effects, resulting in zero transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is technically brief but is under-specified rather than concise. Two words do not provide sufficient structure or information, so it does not earn its place as a helpful tool definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the nested parameter structure, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context about the listing scope, response format, or any constraints, making it wholly inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about the required pathParams (format and projectId). It fails to explain how format affects output or why projectId is needed, leaving the agent with only the schema's bare property names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List files' simply restates the tool name 'getFiles' with no additional specificity. It provides a verb+resource but lacks any distinction from other file-related operations like createFile or downloadAttachment, making it essentially a tautology.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getProjects or getIssues. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate scenario.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools