redmine-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List projects

projects_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List visible Redmine projects with pagination and optional associated data, returning a page of results and total_count for project browsing or selection.

Instructions

Lists visible projects. Returns the page plus total_count.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Projects per page (max 100).
`offset`	No	Pagination offset.
`include`	No	Associated data: trackers, issue_categories, enabled_modules, time_entry_activities.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projects`	Yes
`total_count`	No

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": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "projects": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "propertyNames": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "projects"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that a page and total_count are returned, which is largely covered by the output schema, and says nothing about how visibility is determined or what `include` changes.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return-shape context. No wasted verbiage.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, full parameter documentation, and read-only annotations, so the description covers the essentials. It still omits visibility rules and any guidance on `include` or pagination, keeping it short of fully complete.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Lists visible projects') and adds scope ('visible'). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as projects_get or projects_list_memberships, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by 'visible projects', but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over projects_get, projects_list_memberships, or search_query. Pagination strategy and inclusion choices are left entirely to the schema.

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