Redmine MCP Server

getIssueCategory

Read-only

Retrieve an issue category by ID to view its name and properties, with output in JSON or XML.

Instructions

Show issue category

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pathParams": "<pathParams>"
    },
    "name": "getIssueCategory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pathParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safe read behavior, and the description merely repeats this with 'Show' without adding context about response format, pagination, or error behavior. With annotations present, the description adds no extra disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three words long, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loading of important constraints or details; it fails to earn its minimal length with necessary information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no output schema, a nested parameter object, and zero guidance in the description, the agent lacks essential context about expected return values and parameter semantics. This is inadequate for a tool that requires two parameters.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the required parameters format or issueCategoryId. The schema defines an enum for format and a numeric ID, but the description provides no assistance in understanding their usage or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Show issue category' uses a verb and resource, indicating a retrieval operation, but it lacks specificity about what information is returned or how it differs from getIssueCategories. It's minimally adequate but not clearly distinguishing beyond singular vs plural.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getIssueCategories or updateIssueCategory. The description offers no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server