redmine-mcp-workflows

redmine_add_membership

Add a member to a Redmine project by specifying project ID, user ID, and role IDs. Validates input for correct assignment.

Instructions

Add a member to a project.

Args: project_id: project id or slug. user_id: user or group id to add. role_ids: list of role ids to assign (required, non-empty).

Honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "role_ids": "<role_ids>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_add_membership"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_id`	Yes
`role_ids`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the read-only flag but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the action is reversible, error handling, or side effects beyond basic mutation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then a compact args list, and one line for the read-only flag. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe return values or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: project_id (id or slug), user_id (user or group id), role_ids (list of role ids, required non-empty). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only fields.

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?

The description states 'Add a member to a project,' which is a clear, specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like redmine_remove_membership and redmine_update_membership.

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?

The description includes parameter requirements (role_ids is required and non-empty) and notes the REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY constraint, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_add_group_user.

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

Deploy Server