issues_list_relationsRetrieve all relations for a Redmine issue to see blockers, duplicates, and linked tasks. Provide an issue ID to map dependencies and avoid missed connections.
Lists the relations (blocks, duplicates, …) of an issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_id | Yes | Issue id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no pagination, no return shape, no ordering or grouping of the relation types.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with zero filler and the resource stated up front. It is appropriately sized for a trivial read, though it is arguably too sparse to convey return expectations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description should have said something about the returned structure (e.g., grouped by relation type, direction of the relation), which it leaves unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Issue id.'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g., whether it's the local issue whose relations are returned vs. the related issue), so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource ('Lists the relations ... of an issue') with illustrative relation types (blocks, duplicates), which cleanly separates it from issues_list, issues_get, and issues_create_relation. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No statement of when to use this versus issues_get (which may also surface relations) or issues_create_relation / issues_delete_relation for mutation. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.