MCP Server for Lychee Redmine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return values (project name, description, status, and members), which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the purpose and key details without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by stating the action, resource, identifier, and return values clearly.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and return values, but for a read operation with no structured output, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error scenarios or data freshness, leaving room for improvement.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'by ID', clarifying that the 'id' parameter is used to identify a specific project, but doesn't provide further details like format examples or constraints beyond the schema's 'exclusiveMinimum'. This partially compensates but doesn't fully address the coverage 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 clearly states the action ('Get project details'), resource ('from Lychee Redmine'), and scope ('by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_projects' (plural) and 'get_project_members'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_schedule' or 'get_users', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 implies usage by specifying 'by ID', suggesting it's for retrieving a single project when the ID is known, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_projects' for listing all projects or 'get_project_members' for member details. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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