Redmine MCP Server

update_my_account

Update your Redmine profile details including name, email, language, custom fields, and notification preferences.

Instructions

Updates the account details of the currently authenticated user.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_my_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`firstname`	No	First name
`lastname`	No	Last name
`mail`	No	Email address
`language`	No	Language preference (e.g., en, es, fr)
`custom_fields`	No	Custom field values
`mail_notification`	No	Email notification preference: all, selected, only_my_events, only_assigned, only_owner, none
`notified_project_ids`	No	Project IDs for email notifications (only when mail_notification=selected)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'updates' but doesn't disclose auth requirements, idempotency, or what happens on partial updates. Minimal behavioral information.

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?

One sentence efficiently conveys the purpose. No fluff, but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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?

Tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about update constraints, error conditions, or behavior. Incomplete for effective agent use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at 3.

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 account details of the currently authenticated user, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like update_user (which updates other users).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_user). No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server