Skip to main content
Glama
leethais91

thais-skills

by leethais91
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Get Redmine Issue

redmine_get_issue
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed Redmine issue information by ID, with options for full details, custom fields, and related associations like attachments and journals.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a single Redmine issue by ID.

Args:

  • issue_id: The issue ID (required)

  • include: Associations: "journals", "children", "relations", "attachments", "changesets", "watchers". Include "attachments" to get the attachment IDs that redmine_download_attachment needs.

  • view: "compact" (default: id, subject, status, priority, assignee, done, tracker, project) or "full" (all fields + description + custom_fields)

  • fields: Override view with specific fields, e.g. ["id","subject","status","custom_fields"]. Available: id, subject, project, tracker, status, priority, author, assigned_to, category, fixed_version, parent, start_date, due_date, done_ratio, estimated_hours, spent_hours, created_on, updated_on, closed_on, custom_fields, description

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNocompact (key fields only) or full (all details)compact
fieldsNoSpecific fields to show, overrides view mode
includeNoAssociations to include: journals,children,relations,attachments,changesets,watchers
issue_idYesIssue ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful cross-tool dependency (attachment IDs for download) and explains how include affects the response. No contradictions. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but annotations lower the burden.

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 organized with an Args section and is front-loaded with the main purpose. It is a bit long due to field lists, but every part earns its place. No fluff, clear formatting.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description compensates by describing what compact and full views return (field lists). It also covers include associations and field overrides. Missing error handling or response format specifics, but for a read tool with strong annotations, it is adequately complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Specific fields to show, overrides view mode'), but the description enriches them significantly: lists available fields, explains compact vs. full field sets, and shows how to use include. This goes well beyond the schema, giving agents a full picture of parameter usage.

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?

States it retrieves detailed info for a single Redmine issue by ID, clearly distinguishing from list_issues which handles multiple. The verb+resource is specific and the scope (single issue) is explicit. Does not explicitly name the sibling tool but the distinction is implied.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on when to use include attachments (needed by redmine_download_attachment) and explains view modes and field overrides. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. list_issues or other alternatives; the context is clear but not explicitly contrasted.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools