Redmine MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves server information and status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is included (e.g., version, uptime, performance metrics), whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('取得服務器資訊和狀態') that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on what information is returned or behavioral traits. For a simple read-only tool, this might be sufficient, but it doesn't provide full context for effective use.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't have to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 '取得服務器資訊和狀態' (Get server information and status) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('取得' - get) and resource ('服務器資訊和狀態' - server information and status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on issues, users, projects, etc., though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'health_check' which might be a related sibling.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for general server diagnostics) or when not to use it (e.g., for specific health checks that 'health_check' might handle), nor does it reference any sibling tools as alternatives.

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