Fetches full details of a Redmine issue by ID, including description, comments, and attachments. Use to retrieve comprehensive issue information for analysis or reporting.
チケットの詳細(説明・コメント履歴・添付一覧込み)を返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the rich payload (comments and attachments included), implying a read operation, but never states whether authentication or permissions are required, nor whether fetching is heavy — a meaningful gap for a tool returning comment history and attachments.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the richest detail (comments, attachments) placed in a parenthetical. No waste, though it is terse to the point of being under-informative.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but the lone parameter is undocumented and there is no positioning against the many sibling issue tools, leaving the definition minimally viable.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required issue_id parameter, so the schema gives no semantics at all (only a bare integer type). The description does not mention issue_id, its format, or whether it is a ticket ID versus a database key, leaving the only parameter entirely undocumented.
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 specific verb (返す/return) and resource (チケット/ticket), and enumerates the payload scope (description, comment history, attachments). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_issues, update_issue, or delete_issue, so an agent gets no explicit routing signal.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With 23 sibling tools including list_issues and get_project, the description offers nothing about which to pick based on the agent's situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.