openproject-mcp

Create relation

op_create_relation

Create a relation between two work packages using types such as blocks, precedes, or relates. Specify source and target work package IDs.

Instructions

Create a relation between two work packages. Types: relates, duplicates, blocks, precedes, follows, includes, partOf, requires.

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": {
      "fromId": "<fromId>",
      "toId": "<toId>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "op_create_relation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fromId`	Yes	Source work package id
`toId`	Yes	Target work package id
`type`	Yes	Relation type, e.g. "blocks", "precedes", "relates"
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Description indicates mutation ('create') but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or constraints. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, which is minimal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, and efficiently lists types. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return value (e.g., created relation ID). It does not. Also missing context about scoping (e.g., project context). Adequate but 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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters documented). The description adds example types but overlaps with schema's examples. Adds marginal value beyond 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?

Clearly states 'Create a relation between two work packages' with a specific verb and resource. Lists relation types, distinguishing from siblings like op_delete_relation and op_get_relation.

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?

Lists types but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or context for selecting relation types. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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