Retrieve a Redmine project's members and their roles to identify who can access or contribute to the project.
Members of a project with their roles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size | |
| offset | No | Items to skip, use next_offset of the previous page | |
| project | Yes | Project identifier (e.g. "support") or numeric id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no note on pagination behavior, permissions required, or whether roles are returned inline or as identifiers.
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?
At six words it is undeniably concise and front-loaded with the resource. But it is a bare noun phrase rather than a complete statement of purpose, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
For a simple read-only list endpoint with complete parameter documentation and full safety annotations, the minimum is met. However, with no output schema and no description of the return shape, the agent cannot know what a member record contains beyond the vague hint about roles.
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 100%, so project, limit, and offset are all documented in the schema itself, including the next_offset pagination hint. The description's mention of "roles" hints at output content but adds no meaning to the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The fragment "Members of a project with their roles" conveys the resource (project members) and adds the roles detail, which goes slightly beyond the tool name. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish this tool from any sibling (e.g. list_projects or get_project), leaving the agent to infer the listing action.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects, get_project, or get_current_user. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about when a project-member listing is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.