redmine-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getUserWorkload

getUserWorkload

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze a user's open-issue workload per project and priority: see overdue count, estimated vs spent hours, and top issues. Returns aggregate metrics, not individual issue records.

Instructions

Analyze one user's open-issue workload by project and priority, including overdue count, estimated versus spent hours and top issues; omitting userId selects the API-key user. This returns aggregates, not issue records; use getMyIssues for the current user or listIssues for a specified user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userId`	No
`projectId`	No	Project identifier or numeric ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hours`	No
`userId`	Yes	User identifier the analysis is for.
`overdue`	Yes	Number of analyzed issues whose due date is in the past.
`userName`	No	Display name of the user. May be a placeholder like 'User #42' when only an id was provided.
`byProject`	No	Per-project breakdown of the user's workload.
`projectId`	No	Project the workload was scoped to, null when scope is all projects.
`topIssues`	No	Up to 10 most important open issues for the user, sorted by priority then by due date.
`truncated`	Yes	True when the analyzed set is a truncated slice of the full open set.
`analyzedIssues`	Yes	Number of issues actually analyzed (may be smaller than totalOpenIssues when analysis was truncated).
`totalOpenIssues`	Yes	Total number of open issues assigned to the user across all pages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the result is an aggregate view rather than issue records, and that omitting userId changes the target user to the API-key user.

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 carry significant value with no filler. The core behavior and filters are front-loaded, followed by the aggregate-versus-records distinction and a concise pointer to alternatives.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description covers user selection, aggregation semantics, and sibling routing, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50% because userId lacks any schema description. The description compensates by explaining the optional userId semantics, including the API-key user fallback. projectId is already described in the schema as 'Project identifier or numeric ID', and the description reinforces its role in workload analysis.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyze one user's open-issue workload') and enumerates the analysis dimensions: project, priority, overdue count, estimated versus spent hours, and top issues. It also explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by noting it returns aggregates, not issue records, and names getMyIssues and listIssues as the alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides clear routing guidance: use getMyIssues for the current user, listIssues for a specified user when issue records are needed, and this tool for aggregate workload analysis. Also explains the important behavior that omitting userId selects the API-key user, giving agents concrete selection criteria.

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