Redmine MCP Server

create_issue_category

Create a new issue category in a Redmine project by providing the project ID and category name. Optionally assign a user to auto-assign issues in this category.

Instructions

Creates a new issue category in a project.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID (numeric) or identifier (string). Required
`name`	Yes	Category name (required)
`assigned_to_id`	No	Numeric user ID to auto-assign issues in this category

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the creation action, with no details on side effects, permission requirements, uniqueness constraints, or return value.

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 a single clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly expanded to include key context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a creation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what is returned, whether the category name must be unique per project, or any error conditions.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in 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 states the action ('creates'), the resource ('new issue category'), and the scope ('in a project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, get, delete, and update issue categories.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_issue_category). Usage is implied by 'creates', but no context on prerequisites or limitations.

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

Deploy Server