Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by compasify
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

unarchiveProject

Restores an archived Redmine project to active status by sending its project ID and choosing a response format.

Instructions

Unarchive 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>"
    },
    "name": "unarchiveProject"
  }
}

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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or state changes. The tool's mutating nature (unarchiving) is only implied by the name, not clarified by the description.

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 rather than conciseness. It repeats the tool name and provides no useful content, so it does not earn its place. A useful description would clarify behavior and parameters while remaining brief.

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?

For a tool with a nested parameter object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the format and projectId parameters, expected outcomes, or any operational context, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 mentions no parameters. The input schema defines pathParams with format and projectId, but the description adds no meaning or guidance on how these parameters should be used. The agent is left to infer everything from the schema 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 'Unarchive project' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'unarchiveProject', providing no additional clarity or distinguishing information. It is a tautology rather than a meaningful explanation of the tool's function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archiveProject, reopenProject, or closeProject. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without sufficient direction for tool selection.

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