Create a new issue category in a Redmine project by providing the project ID or identifier and category details. Organize issues into custom categories for better tracking and management.
Create issue category (POST /projects/:project_id/issue_categories.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | project id or identifier | |
| issue_category | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states that the operation creates a category via POST. It does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, authentication needs, duplicate handling, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and the endpoint is useful context. It is economical, though the extreme brevity leaves out important operational details that other dimensions must penalize.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with a nested payload, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It does not explain how to construct issue_category, what will be returned, or any constraints, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly from the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: project_id is documented as 'project id or identifier', but issue_category is an opaque additionalProperties object with no field definitions. The description adds no meaning to the payload, so an agent cannot know what fields to include.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('issue category'), and includes the exact API endpoint. It is distinguishable from sibling category tools like list/get/update/delete, though it does not explicitly contrast against them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites like project existence or permission requirements. Usage must be inferred entirely from the word 'Create' and the endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.