Retrieve a Redmine project's details by ID. Optionally include associated trackers, issue categories, time entry activities, enabled modules, or issue custom fields.
Show project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pathParams | Yes | ||
| queryParams | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a read operation, so the description needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention that the 'format' parameter controls response serialization, that 'include' can expand related resources, or any details about response shape or error behavior. No value is added beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. The single sentence 'Show project' merely restates the tool name and provides no structured or front-loaded information. It does not earn its place because it adds zero useful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two required nested parameters, enums, and no output schema, but the description offers nothing about the return value, parameter semantics, or relationship to sibling tools. An agent cannot accurately invoke this tool or interpret its response from the given definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema leaves every parameter undocumented. The description must compensate by explaining what projectId, format, and include do, but it does not mention any of them. An agent has no guidance on how to construct valid calls or what values like 'trackers' or 'issue_categories' mean.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show project' is essentially a restatement of the tool name getProject, providing no additional specificity about what the project representation includes. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like getProjects or getIssue, nor does it mention any filtering or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getProjects for listing or getIssue for a different resource type. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool more appropriate than its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.