Redmine MCP Server

redmine_list_users

Find and list Redmine users, filtering by name, group, or pagination to retrieve the user data you need.

Instructions

List users in Redmine

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "redmine_list_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Filter by name (first name, last name, or login)
`limit`	No	Maximum number of users to return (1-100, default: 25)
`offset`	No	Number of users to skip
`group_id`	No	Filter by group ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'list', but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, or scope of users returned (e.g., active/inactive). Significant behavioral traits are left unstated.

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, front-loaded sentence that is easy to process. It is not verbose, but it is also extremely terse, omitting potentially useful details. However, conciseness is not penalized for brevity alone; it remains efficient and uncluttered.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return format, pagination, and use cases. It only states the basic action, leaving gaps for an agent to know how to invoke the tool and interpret results, especially for a list operation with four parameters.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (name, limit, offset, group_id), and the description adds no additional parameter context. Since the schema already documents each parameter clearly, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly uses the verb 'list' and the resource 'users' in Redmine, indicating it returns a collection of users. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool redmine_get_user, but the plural 'users' implies a list versus a single user, so the purpose is clear but lacks detailed scope.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_get_user, nor any mention of filtering strategies or pagination. The description simply states the action without contextual advice on when to invoke it.

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