redmine-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get an issue

issues_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a single Redmine issue by ID, optionally including associated data. Use it to fetch full issue details; a 403 means the project or issue is not visible to you.

Instructions

Returns one issue by id, with optional associated data via include. A 403 means the issue sits in a project you cannot see or is private to someone else — call users_my_access to list what is visible instead of retrying the id.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "issues_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Issue id.
`include`	No	Associated data to include (see issues_list).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0Oct 23, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the 403 semantics — explaining that permission-shaped failures are indistinguishable from not-found and should not be retried. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing include-failure behavior or result size, hence not a 5.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first establishes what is returned, the second prevents a wasted retry loop. The core behavior is front-loaded with zero preamble.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on the 403 edge case instead. The only minor gap is not enumerating include options or noting what happens with an invalid id versus a forbidden one.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema already. The description only implies the include parameter's purpose ('optional associated data via include') and defers to issues_list for valid values, adding no real syntax beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource — 'Returns one issue by id' — with the optional include expansion, which cleanly contrasts with the sibling issues_list that returns many. An agent can distinguish the single-fetch from list/search tools immediately.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete failure-path guidance: on 403 the issue is in an invisible project or private to someone else, and it names users_my_access as the alternative action rather than retrying. It does not cover other cases (e.g., wrong id vs. missing issue, or when to prefer issues_list), but the guidance it does give is actionable and non-obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.