Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by compasify
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

getIssues

List Redmine issues using filters like project, status, assignee, and due date. Get results in JSON or XML for integration.

Instructions

List issues

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": "getIssues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathParamsYes
queryParamsYes

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List issues' and fails to mention pagination, filtering, response format, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is almost no disclosure beyond the tool's name.

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 concise ('List issues'), which is efficient but under-specified. It lacks essential context and is more of a title than a helpful description, so the conciseness is not a virtue here.

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 complex schema with many optional filters, a required format parameter, and no output schema, a two-word description is wholly inadequate. The tool likely requires knowledge of path format and query parameters to be used correctly, none of which are conveyed.

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 contains numerous undocumented query parameters (e.g., cf_x, nometa, spent_time) and required pathParams/queryParams objects, with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to use them.

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 'List issues' clearly states the action (list) and resource (issues), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like getIssue or clarify the exact scope (e.g., does it list all issues or requires filters).

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use getIssues versus getIssue or other list tools, nor does it mention prerequisites, filtering scenarios, or alternative tools that might 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