Redmine MCP Server

getIssue

Fetch a specific Redmine issue by ID with optional details like attachments, journals, and relations.

Instructions

Show issue

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>",
      "queryParams": "<queryParams>"
    },
    "name": "getIssue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pathParams`	Yes
`queryParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations available, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Show issue' merely indicates a read operation already implied by the name, and omits any details about authentication, error handling, or response format. It adds no value beyond the structured data.

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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than valuable conciseness. Two words provide no meaningful information, so they do not earn their place.

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 a tool with nested schema, required query params, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-word description is grossly inadequate. The agent receives no information about what 'showing' an issue entails, what parameters affect behavior, or what the return structure is.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description lists no parameters or their meanings. Although the schema itself contains enums and nested fields, the description provides no compensation, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 'Show issue' essentially restates the tool name 'getIssue' with a synonym (show vs get), providing no additional specificity about scope, return value, or how it differs from the sibling 'getIssues'. It's a near-tautology that relies entirely on the name for meaning.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool vs alternatives such as getIssues or getIssueRelations. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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

Deploy Server