redmine-mcp-server

by igorolv

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

compareVersions

compareVersions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two project versions or milestones to identify unique and shared issues, and view closure percentages for each.

Instructions

Compare the issue scope and completion of two known versions/milestones in one project. Returns issues unique to each, shared issues and closure percentages; use listVersions to discover IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	Yes	Project identifier or numeric ID
`versionId1`	Yes	First version/milestone ID; from listVersions
`versionId2`	Yes	Second version/milestone ID; from listVersions

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`first`	No	Scope statistics for the first version.
`inBoth`	No	Issues present in both versions.
`second`	No	Scope statistics for the second version.
`projectId`	No	Project identifier the versions belong to.
`onlyInFirst`	No	Issues present only in the first version.
`onlyInSecond`	No	Issues present only in the second version.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by explaining the returned comparison categories (unique issues, shared issues, closure percentages). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite for IDs is tacked on at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only three-parameter comparison tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how to obtain valid IDs. The output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not the description's responsibility.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description including the listVersions source for versionIds. The description reinforces the version/milestone semantics but does not materially add new parameter meaning.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Compare' with a defined resource ('issue scope and completion' of two versions/milestones) and names the outputs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like listVersions and getVersionChangelog.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states the context: comparing two known versions/milestones within one project, and tells the agent to use listVersions to discover IDs. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives, but the two-version comparison scope is unambiguous.

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