Retrieve active Redmine users and their IDs for membership and group management, with filters by name or group and pagination. Admin access required.
Active users with their ids, needed for memberships and groups (admin only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Login, first name, last name or email contains | |
| limit | No | Page size | |
| offset | No | Items to skip, use next_offset of the previous page | |
| group_id | No | Only members of this group |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the implicit 'active only' filter and the admin-only permission requirement. It says nothing about result size or ordering, but with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.
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 telegraphic sentence with no wasted words; the resource and the most important constraint (admin only) are front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description does well to state that ids are returned, and the admin-only and active-only constraints are the key non-obvious facts. Pagination behaviour is left to the schema, which documents offset/limit adequately, so only minor gaps remain.
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% (name, limit, offset, group_id all documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or semantics for these parameters beyond implying the active-user filter applied to results.
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 description names the specific resource (users), scopes it (active only), states what it yields (ids), and gives its downstream purpose (memberships and groups). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_current_user or list_project_members, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: it tells the agent this list exists to feed memberships/groups and that it is admin-only, which is useful context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for related lookups such as get_current_user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.