Find Redmine tickets, wiki pages, and news by full-text query. Provide a keyword to retrieve matching items from a self-hosted Redmine instance.
Redmine 全体を全文検索する(チケット・Wiki・ニュース等)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | 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 behavioral burden, yet it only names the content scope searched. It says nothing about result counts/pagination (the 25 default limit), permissions, or that the operation is read-only, all of which matter for a mutation-ambiguous tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 explained, but the rest is thin: 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and unstated limit/pagination behavior. For a search tool spanning all content types, an agent is missing key invocation context.
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%, so the description would need to compensate for two undocumented parameters. It hints that a query exists via '全文検索' but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or scope for 'query', and never addresses the 'limit' parameter at all.
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 (full-text search) and resource (all of Redmine), with concrete scope examples (tickets, Wiki, news). However it does not distinguish itself from cross-cutting siblings like list_issues or list_wiki_pages, which a full-scope search overlaps with.
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 and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the right tool when it wants cross-content search rather than a scoped list call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.