redmine_list_versionsRetrieve all versions (milestones) for a Redmine project by project ID, including status and due dates.
List all versions (milestones) for a Redmine project.
Args:
project_id: Project ID or identifier (required)
Returns: List of versions with status and due dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID or identifier |
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'List of versions with status and due dates,' which is useful output context. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or other behaviors, but given the read-only nature, this is adequate.
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 a single sentence for purpose, followed by a compact 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every element is necessary and front-loaded. There is no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple, read-only list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states purpose, parameter, and return content. It could mention pagination or limits, but that is not critical for this straightforward call.
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 100%: project_id is documented as 'Project ID or identifier' in both schema and description. The description adds no extra detail (e.g., format, examples). Since the schema fully covers the parameter, baseline 3 applies.
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 states 'List all versions (milestones) for a Redmine project' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes from other list tools (e.g., redmine_list_projects, redmine_list_issues) by targeting versions specifically. The parenthetical 'milestones' adds clarity.
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 purpose is clear and unambiguous; there is no sibling tool for listing versions, so usage is obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. The context of needing project versions is sufficient, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.