Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by compasify
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

getProject

Retrieve a Redmine project by ID, optionally including trackers, issue categories, time entries, enabled modules, and custom fields. Access project details directly from the Redmine REST API.

Instructions

Show project

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": "getProject"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathParamsYes
queryParamsYes

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. 'Show project' does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. It offers 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 extremely short but this is under-specification, not conciseness. A single vague phrase like 'Show project' does not earn its place because it conveys no useful information beyond the tool name.

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 tool has nested required parameters (format, projectId), an optional include query, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to address what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any behavioral constraints.

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 does not compensate. It fails to explain the purpose of pathParams (format, projectId) or queryParams (include), leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for constructing valid requests.

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 project' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'getProject'. It uses a generic verb ('show') and a generic resource ('project') with no additional scope or details, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'getProjects' or 'getIssue'.

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. It does not mention that 'getProjects' lists all projects or that this tool retrieves a single project by ID, nor does it state any prerequisites or exceptions.

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