redmine-mcp

get_project

Retrieve Redmine project details including enabled trackers, modules, and categories to check tracker availability before creating a ticket.

Instructions

プロジェクトの詳細(有効トラッカー・有効モジュール・カテゴリ込み)を返す。

チケット作成前に対象プロジェクトでトラッカーが有効か確認できる。

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a non-destructive read and discloses what the response contains, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for a nonexistent/inaccessible project_id, or any rate limits.

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 with zero filler; the return scope leads and the usage condition follows. Well front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out further, and listing the key contents is a helpful extra. For a one-parameter read tool the definition is essentially complete, missing only parameter format detail and failure behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter project_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no information about its expected format (numeric ID vs. identifier/slug) or how to obtain it. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("プロジェクトの詳細を返す") and enumerates the payload scope (enabled trackers, modules, categories), which distinguishes it from list_projects and update_project. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a concrete, actionable precondition: call this before creating a ticket to verify the tracker is enabled for the target project. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it names no alternative tools for related lookups (e.g. list_metadata, list_projects).

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