Redmine MCP Server

update_agile_sprint

Updates an existing sprint in Redmine with new name, dates, status, or sharing settings. Requires the RedmineUP Agile plugin.

Instructions

Updates an existing sprint. Requires the RedmineUP Agile plugin.

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>",
      "sprint_id": "<sprint_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_agile_sprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID (numeric) or identifier (string)
`sprint_id`	Yes	Numeric sprint ID
`name`	No	New sprint name
`start_date`	No	Sprint start date (DD.MM.YYYY)
`end_date`	No	Sprint end date (DD.MM.YYYY)
`status`	No	Sprint status
`sharing`	No	Sprint sharing setting

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'updates an existing sprint' without detailing permissions, side effects, or validation. The plugin note is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two clear sentences with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is brief. It covers the essential action and plugin dependency but lacks details on return values or full behavioral context, making it minimally adequate.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 it updates an existing sprint, distinguishing it from siblings like create_agile_sprint (create) or delete_agile_sprint (delete). The plugin requirement is specified, adding precision.

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?

The description mentions a plugin requirement but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. It is implied for modifying sprints, but lacks exclusionary context.

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

Deploy Server