redmine-mcp

read_wiki_page

Retrieve the full text of a wiki page from a Redmine project using its project ID and title. Useful for accessing documentation or notes stored in Redmine wikis.

Instructions

Wiki ページの本文を返す。

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": "read_wiki_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read but says nothing about permissions, behavior when the page or project does not exist, or any rate limits. Only the minimal fact that it returns page body text is conveyed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than well-sized. Front-loaded and readable, just thin.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described, but for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without parameter meaning, prerequisites, or error 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing about project_id or title. The description mentions neither parameter, offering no added meaning; only the self-evident names of the parameters carry any signal.

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 — returning the body of a Wiki page — which is more than a restatement of the name. It is clear what operation is performed, though it does not differentiate from siblings like list_wiki_pages or write_wiki_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 the other wiki tools (list_wiki_pages, write_wiki_page, delete_wiki_page). No prerequisites, no context for the intended scenario.

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