Redmine MCP Server

redmine_list_files

Lists files for a Redmine project. Provide the project identifier to get the list of associated files.

Instructions

List files for 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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_list_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID or identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'List files' with no disclosure of requiring authentication, pagination behavior, or what data is returned for each file. It does not contradict annotations since none exist, but it is minimally informative.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It communicates the core action efficiently, though it could be expanded with useful context without being wasteful.

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?

For a read operation with no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., file metadata, URLs) and any relevant constraints like ordering or access. It lacks this, making it under-specified for an agent needing to consume the result.

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?

The input schema already describes project_id with 'Project ID or identifier' at 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'for a specific project' echoes the schema and adds no new semantics about parameter format, required permissions, or valid values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'files' with a scope 'for a specific project'. This clearly distinguishes it from file mutation tools like redmine_create_file and retrieval tools like redmine_get_attachment, even without naming them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redmine_get_attachment or redmine_list_wiki_pages. The description does not state that it should be used for project-scoped file listing, nor does it mention any limitations or exclusions.

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