Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
redmine-mcp

redmine-mcp

by devyhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get a wiki page

wiki_get_page
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a Redmine wiki page by project and title, including its text and attachments, optionally for a specific old version.

Instructions

Returns one wiki page with its text and attachments.

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>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_get_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesPage title.
versionNoOld version number to fetch.
project_idYesProject id or identifier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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. The description adds that the response includes text and attachments, which is useful, but says nothing about error behavior for missing pages or the significance of fetching an old version.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is thin enough that a little more substance could have been added without bloat.

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?

For a simple read tool with full annotation coverage, a fully documented 3-parameter schema, and no output schema, the description adequately signals the return content (text and attachments). Only minor behavioral detail is missing, which is acceptable here.

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 title, project_id, and version are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning (e.g., version semantics or identifier formats), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('one wiki page') and states the payload ('text and attachments'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like wiki_list_pages or wiki_save_page.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus wiki_list_pages (browsing) or wiki_save_page. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are mentioned, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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