Skip to main content
Glama
Avicennasis

redmine-mcp-workflows

by Avicennasis

redmine_request

Execute any Redmine REST API call directly, bypassing validation and workflow checks. Supports all HTTP methods with custom paths, body, and parameters.

Instructions

ESCAPE HATCH — generic passthrough to any Redmine REST endpoint.

Bypasses redmine-mcp's validation, workflow checks, and schema cache. Every response carries validation_skipped: true so the caller can't accidentally forget. Gated behind REDMINE_MCP_ENABLE_PASSTHROUGH=true — calls return passthrough_disabled if the flag isn't set.

Args: method: HTTP verb. One of GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, PATCH. Case-insensitive. path: must start with /. Joined onto REDMINE_URL by the client. Example: "/custom_fields.json". body: body for POST/PUT/PATCH. Accepted as either a JSON-encoded string (e.g. '{"issue": {"subject": "renamed"}}') or a JSON object passed directly (e.g. {"issue": {"subject": "renamed"}}). Empty string / empty dict means no body. (The dual form is intentional — some MCP transports auto-parse JSON-shaped string args into objects before the tool sees them.) params: query params for GET, in the same dual string/object form.

Honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY for non-GET methods.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
pathYes
methodYes
paramsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool bypasses validation, workflow checks, and schema cache; that every response includes 'validation_skipped: true'; that it is gated behind 'REDMINE_MCP_ENABLE_PASSTHROUGH'; and that it respects 'REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY' for non-GET methods. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear header, bulleted parameter list, and context. It is not overly verbose, though the explanation of the dual form for body/params could be slightly more concise. Overall, it is efficiently organized.

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 as an escape hatch, the 4 parameters, and the existence of an output schema (not shown but flagged as present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage gating, parameter details, behavior, and response marker. No obvious gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate fully. It does: it explains 'method' as an HTTP verb with allowed values, 'path' as starting with '/' and being joined to REDMINE_URL, 'body' and 'params' as accepting both JSON string and object forms (with rationale for the dual form). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a 'generic passthrough to any Redmine REST endpoint', which is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that handle specific operations. It explicitly states it 'bypasses redmine-mcp's validation, workflow checks, and schema cache', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides strong context: it is an escape hatch for unsupported endpoints, gated behind an environment variable, and honors the read-only flag. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of a sibling, leaving it implied that it is for cases not covered by specific tools.

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