redmine_list_permissionsLists Redmine tool groups, required permission scopes, and enabled status to diagnose 403 errors and identify which operations the current account can use.
Lists the tool groups, the Redmine permission scopes each needs, and which groups are enabled. The first call when something returns 403.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 covered. The description adds useful content beyond that: it enumerates what the output contains (tool groups, scopes, enabled flags) and frames the tool as a 403 diagnostic, which complements the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The content description leads and the usage trigger follows, so both the what and the when are front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does list the three categories of data returned. It stops short of describing format or whether the list is exhaustive, leaving a small gap for a diagnostic tool an agent may call on error paths.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and no parameter-related confusion is introduced.
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?
States a precise verb and resource (lists tool groups, their required Redmine permission scopes, and enabled state), which is far more specific than the title alone. No sibling tool covers permissions, so it is easily distinguished from the surrounding issue/project/wiki tools.
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?
"The first call when something returns 403" gives an explicit, actionable trigger for when to reach for this tool. It does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use it, but the diagnostic condition is clear enough to guide invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.