Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
redmine-mcp

redmine-mcp

by devyhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List a project's documents

files_list_documents
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all documents from a Redmine project's Documents module by providing the project ID or identifier. Requires Redmine 7.1 or later.

Instructions

Lists the documents of a project's Documents module. Needs Redmine 7.1+.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "files_list_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject id or identifier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds the version requirement (Redmine 7.1+), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result count, or return shape for a list operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the version constraint follows immediately. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single parameter, the description is nearly sufficient. But the unresolved overlap with files_list_project_files leaves a real selection ambiguity that the description should have resolved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is documented as 'Project id or identifier', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('documents of a project's Documents module'), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling files_list_project_files, which sounds like it could cover the same ground, forcing the agent to guess between the two.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a prerequisite ('Needs Redmine 7.1+'), which is a genuine usage constraint, but it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names files_list_project_files as the alternative. Usage is only implied by the resource phrasing.

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