Redmine MCP Server

redmine_get_project

Retrieve a Redmine project's full details by its ID, including optional trackers, issue categories, enabled modules, and time entry activities.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific project

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Project ID or identifier
`include`	No	Additional data to include: trackers, issue_categories, enabled_modules, time_entry_activities

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention potential errors (e.g., not found), response format, or any side effects. It offers basic clarity but lacks depth.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it is minimal and could be expanded with useful context without becoming verbose.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what 'detailed information' entails or how the 'include' parameter affects the response. Given the tool's complexity (2 params, optional include), the description is vague and does not fully equip an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('id' and 'include'), so the schema already documents what each parameter does. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter syntax or usage nuances.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific project' clearly states the action (get) and resource (specific project), distinguishing it from listing tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like redmine_get_project_versions, relying on the word 'specific' to imply a single entity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redmine_list_projects for listing all projects or redmine_get_project_versions for versions. There are no exclusions or context clues beyond the general scope implied by 'specific project.'

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