Retrieve a specific version of a wiki page from Redmine by providing project ID, page title, and version number. Access historical content for review or comparison.
Show wiki page by specific version
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pathParams | Yes | ||
| queryParams | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description 'Show' aligns with that. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotation provides—no mention of response format, error behavior, or how versionId is used. With annotations present, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as descriptions are not expected to repeat annotation info, but here no additional context is offered.
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 short sentence, front-loading the core action. It contains no fluff or redundancy. For a tool with a simple purpose, this level of conciseness is ideal.
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?
With multiple required parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the expected response, how the version is selected, or any constraints on format/include. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional documentation or inference.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It fails to mention what format, projectId, wikiPageTitle, or versionId mean, or that queryParams can include attachments. The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which provides enums but no semantic meaning. This is a significant gap.
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 a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'wiki page by specific version', clearly indicating retrieval of a specific historical version. It differentiates from siblings like getWikiPage and getWikiPages by the version focus, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is immediately understandable.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for retrieving a specific historical version, nor does it contrast with getWikiPage (current version). The agent would have to infer usage context 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.