Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by compasify
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

getIssueRelation

Retrieve a specific issue relation from Redmine by its ID, returning details in JSON or XML format.

Instructions

Show issue relation

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": "getIssueRelation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathParamsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.4

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Show issue relation' merely restates the tool's name and provides no details about permissions, side effects, error behavior, or return format. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 short but under-specified rather than concise. It is a three-word phrase that fails to earn its place by conveying necessary information, similar to a placeholder.

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 that there is no output schema or annotations, and the tool deals with a nested object containing multiple parameters, the description is far too sparse. It does not clarify that this retrieves a single relation by ID, how it relates to sibling tools, or what output to expect.

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 to the input parameters. It does not explain 'format' or 'issueRelationId', leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's property names and enum values.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Show issue relation' specifies a clear action (show) and resource (issue relation), effectively telling the agent it retrieves an issue relation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'getIssueRelations' (plural), which likely lists all relations, so it misses the top score.

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 'getIssueRelations' or 'createIssueRelation'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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