Skip to main content
Glama
Avicennasis

redmine-mcp-workflows

by Avicennasis

redmine_bulk_update_issues

Apply the same field updates to many Redmine issues in one call, including status, priority, assignee, custom fields, and dates. Returns counts of succeeded, failed, and skipped issues.

Instructions

Apply the same field updates to many issues in one call.

Args: issue_ids: list of numeric issue ids (≤ 100 per call). subject, description, status, priority, assigned_to_id, notes: same semantics as redmine_update_issue — at least one must be supplied. custom_fields: raw custom-field entries (list of {"id": N, "value": "..."} dicts). Merged into each issue's PUT. difficulty: convenience for the Difficulty custom field ("Unclassified" / "Easy" / "Normal" / "Hard"). held: True marks every issue as held. False (default) means unchanged. held_until: ISO-8601 date for the Held Until custom field. due_date: ISO-8601 date to set on every issue. start_date: ISO-8601 date to set on every issue. done_ratio: 0-100 progress percent; -1 (default) means unchanged. stop_on_error: if True, halt at the first failure (remaining ids land in skipped); otherwise best-effort across the whole batch.

Returns {total, succeeded, failed, skipped}. Honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY. Sequential — Redmine has no batch endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
heldNo
notesNo
statusNo
subjectNo
due_dateNo
priorityNo
issue_idsYes
difficultyNo
done_ratioNo
held_untilNo
start_dateNo
descriptionNo
custom_fieldsNo
stop_on_errorNo
assigned_to_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses sequential execution (no batch endpoint), honoring REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY, stop_on_error behavior, return format {total, succeeded, failed, skipped}, custom_fields merging, and default values. It could explicitly mention destructive nature (modifies issues) but the update context makes it clear.

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?

The description is lengthy but every sentence adds value. It uses a clear docstring-style structure with Args and Returns sections. For 15 parameters, the length is justified. Could be slightly more concise by grouping related fields, but overall well-organized and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no schema descriptions), the description is highly complete. It covers all parameters, constraints, behavioral notes, return format, and edge cases like stop_on_error. It omits error handling details beyond stop_on_error but is otherwise comprehensive for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 description must add meaning for all 15 parameters. It does so exhaustively: explains issue_ids limit, semantics for each field (subject, status, etc.), references redmine_update_issue for some, details custom_fields format, difficulty convenience, held/held_until, dates, done_ratio, stop_on_error, and defaults. Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Apply the same field updates to many issues in one call,' specifying the verb (apply updates) and resource (issues). It distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_update_issue (single issue) and redmine_bulk_close by implying bulk update behavior. Also mentions constraints like ≤100 issue_ids and sequential execution.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implicitly indicates use for bulk updates with same fields, lists constraints (≤100 ids, at least one field required), and mentions stop_on_error behavior. It references redmine_update_issue for field semantics, providing some comparison. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly to alternatives like redmine_bulk_create_issues.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Avicennasis/redmine-mcp-workflows'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server