get_issueRetrieve detailed information about a specific Redmine issue by its ID, including optional associated data, to support issue tracking and management.
Get detailed information about a specific issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | ||
| issue_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does almost nothing with it. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether permissions or visibility scoping apply, or what 'detailed information' encompasses.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the undocumented 'include' parameter and the total absence of usage or behavioral context leave the agent without what it needs to call this confidently. For a lookup tool with a mystery parameter, more was required.
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%. The required issue_id is self-explanatory from its name, but the optional 'include' parameter (string or null, no description, no enum) is completely opaque — the description must explain its accepted values but says nothing.
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 clear verb+resource pair ('Get... a specific issue') and signals that it returns detail for a single record. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_issues or explain how 'detailed' differs from what that tool returns.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_issues or search, nor any prerequisite or exclusion information. The only usage signal is the implied 'single issue vs. collection' convention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.