redmine-mcp-workflows

redmine_close_issue

Close a Redmine issue by moving it to its first is_closed status, optionally adding a closing note. If workflow rules block direct closure, it returns the allowed next states.

Instructions

Move an issue to its first is_closed status (defaults to id 5).

Args: issue_id: numeric Redmine issue id. note: optional closing comment (becomes a journal entry). Use actual newline characters for multi-line notes, not backslash-n escape sequences. Redmine renders notes as Markdown (headings, bold, tables, lists all work).

On a workflow-disallowed direct closure, the response is repackaged with a closure-specific hint listing the allowed next states. Honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY.

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`	No
`quiet`	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

A4.3/5.0

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 well: it discloses the default status id, that the note becomes a journal entry rendered as Markdown, that workflow-disallowed closures return a repackaged response with allowed next states, that REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY is honored, and exactly how quiet=True changes the result (ids+status, compact bulk rows; errors never reduced). These are behaviors an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then args, then edge-case behavior; every block is scannable and earns its place, including the newline-escape warning. Mild redundancy between the Args block and the later quiet paragraph keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

An output schema exists so return-shape explanation is not required, yet the description still explains the quiet-mode reduction and the error path. Combined with the workflow-disallowed and read-only disclosures, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly without opening other tools.

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 coverage is 0% and titles are bare, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines issue_id as a numeric Redmine issue id, note as an optional journal comment with a concrete newline-escape warning and formatting semantics, and quiet as an output-shaping switch. Only quiet's 'bulk' phrasing is slightly ambiguous for a single-issue tool, but coverage is far beyond baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Move an issue to its first is_closed status') and even pins the default target status id 5, which is more precise than a generic 'close issue'. It does not differentiate itself from sibling mutation tools like redmine_update_issue or redmine_bulk_close, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

Usage context is implied: close a single issue, optionally with a journal comment. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over redmine_update_issue (status change) or redmine_bulk_close (multiple issues), and no prerequisite/ordering advice. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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

Deploy Server