Redmine MCP Server

getRole

Read-only

Retrieve details of a specific Redmine role by ID, with output in JSON or XML format.

Instructions

Show role

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": "getRole"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pathParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description. However, the description adds no behavioral context—no mention of what happens if roleId is missing, response format, or any side effects. It merely restates the read-only nature already indicated by 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.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness—it does not earn its place by adding value. A single phrase with no structure or front-loading of essential information fails to be 'appropriately sized' for a tool with required parameters.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter (roleId) and no output schema, the description leaves out essential information: how to specify the role, what format expects, and what the response contains. The agent cannot correctly call this tool based solely on the description.

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%, so the schema itself documents the parameters (format and roleId) but the description does not provide any additional meaning. The description says nothing about what format does, what roleId represents, or how to use them. This is a critical gap given the nested object structure.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Show role' uses a verb and resource, but it is extremely vague—it does not indicate how a role is identified (by ID?) or what is returned. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'getRoles' which likely lists roles, and it lacks any detail about the specific role resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getRoles' or when to use a specific role ID. No context about selection criteria or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent without any direction.

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

Deploy Server