redmine_list_activitiesList Redmine time entry activity types like Development, Design, and Testing. Returns a table of activity IDs and names.
List available time entry activity types (e.g., Development, Design, Testing).
Returns: Table of activity IDs and names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the return format (table of IDs and names), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the list is sorted, paginated, or includes disabled activities. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is fair.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose with examples; the second states the return format. Everything earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not specifying whether the list is exhaustive or ordered, but that's unlikely to affect correct invocation. The output schema is absent, so the return format note is valuable.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to speak of. The description correctly notes the return format (table of IDs and names), which is the only semantic content an agent needs. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing available time entry activity types, with concrete examples (Development, Design, Testing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redmine_list_time_entries (which lists actual time entries) by specifying 'activity types' rather than entries.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need the set of valid activity types for time entries, likely before creating or updating a time entry. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling list makes the distinction clear enough. A 4 is appropriate because the context is clear but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.