Redmine MCP Server

create_issue_relation

Links two issues with a specified relation type to manage dependencies and track task relationships.

Instructions

Creates a relation between two issues.

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": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>",
      "issue_to_id": "<issue_to_id>",
      "relation_type": "<relation_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue_relation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issue_id`	Yes	Numeric source issue ID (required)
`issue_to_id`	Yes	Numeric target issue ID (required)
`relation_type`	Yes	Relation type: relates, duplicates, duplicated, blocks, blocked, precedes, follows, copied_to, copied_from (required)
`delay`	No	Delay in days (only for precedes/follows relation types)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires permissions, or what happens on conflict (e.g., if relation already exists). This is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence without wasted words. However, it may be too minimal given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema). It is adequately sized but lacks necessary detail for a complete understanding.

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?

The description does not explain the return value or side effects of creating a relation. Since there is no output schema, the agent needs to know what to expect. Additionally, no information about error conditions or constraints is provided, making it incomplete.

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%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('creates a relation') and the resource ('between two issues'). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like delete_issue_relation or get_issue_relation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use a different relation type or when to avoid creating duplicates. The description only identifies the action without usage context.

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

Deploy Server