Redmine MCP Server

getUsers

Read-only

List Redmine users with filters for name, status, group, and pagination controls. Use this to fetch user data from Redmine.

Instructions

List users

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>",
      "queryParams": "<queryParams>"
    },
    "name": "getUsers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pathParams`	Yes
`queryParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'List users' is consistent with a read-only operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination via limit/offset, default result limits, or the response format. It provides no value beyond 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is two words, making it extremely concise. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. While there is no wasted text, the extreme brevity leaves out essential information, so it's not well-structured for a tool with this many parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has two parameters (one nested object with required format and another with optional filters) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the format parameter, filtering, pagination, or what the response contains. An agent cannot call this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, meaning the schema itself has no descriptions for parameters. The description does not mention the required 'format' path parameter or any of the query parameters (name, limit, offset, etc.). It adds no semantic meaning to aid an agent in 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 a specific verb 'List' and resource 'users', which clearly indicates a listing operation. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like getUser or getCurrentUser, the plural form implies retrieving all users, and the action is unambiguous. Not a tautology, but could be more descriptive.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getUser or getCurrentUser. No mention of filtering, scoping, or conditions that would make this tool appropriate. The description offers no context for decision-making.

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

Deploy Server