redmine-mcp-workflows

redmine_add_comment

Append a comment to an existing Redmine issue and mark it private when needed, enabling updates without altering issue status.

Instructions

Append a comment (journal entry) to an existing issue.

Args: issue_id: numeric Redmine issue id. note: comment body. Empty/whitespace-only notes are rejected client-side. Use actual newline characters for multi-line notes, not backslash-n escape sequences (literal \n gets stored as visible text, not a line break). Redmine renders notes as Markdown — headings, bold, tables, and lists all work when separated by blank lines. private: if True, mark as a private journal (visible only to users with the view_private_notes Redmine permission).

Honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY. Direct PUT — no pre-fetch, no workflow check (comments don't change status).

With quiet=True a successful result is reduced to ids + status (bulk: compact per-item rows + summary) instead of the full issue JSON. Errors are never reduced.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`quiet`	No
`private`	No
`issue_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / quiet

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Quiet",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: empty notes rejected client-side, backslash-n stored literally, Markdown rendering rules, private visibility gated by the view_private_notes permission, REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY honored, and quiet-mode output reduction. These are exactly the mutating-operation and permission traits an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, then Args and behavioral notes follow in a logical order. The content is dense but nearly every sentence adds actionable detail; slightly verbose in the newline/Markdown guidance but justified by the 0% schema coverage.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the quiet-mode note still covers output shape. The description is complete across params, permissions, environment flags, and side effects for a 4-param mutation tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 and it does for all four parameters: issue_id (numeric Redmine id), note (empty rejected, newline and Markdown conventions), private (view_private_notes permission), and quiet (reduced ids+status output). This is meaning well beyond the bare type/title schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Append a comment (journal entry) to an existing issue') and immediately distinguishes itself from status-changing siblings ('comments don't change status'). An agent can tell this apart from redmine_update_journal or redmine_close_issue without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implicitly contextualizes usage by noting it is a direct PUT with no pre-fetch or workflow check, and describes the private/quiet options. However, it never routes the agent explicitly to alternatives (e.g., redmine_update_journal for editing an existing note) or states when-not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server