redmine-mcp-stdio

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create issue

create_issue

Create a new Redmine issue by providing project identifier and subject. Optionally set status, tracker, description, priority, and assignee.

Instructions

Create a new Redmine issue

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>",
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`subject`	Yes	Issue title
`status_id`	No
`project_id`	Yes	Project identifier or numeric id
`tracker_id`	No
`description`	No
`priority_id`	No
`assigned_to_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate not read-only, not destructive, but the description does not add behavioral context beyond that. No mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. Given that annotations already exist, the description adds minimal value.

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 sentence with no waste, but it is overly minimal. It lacks structure and does not provide sufficient detail. While concise, it sacrifices informativeness.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error states, or usage context. The agent lacks key information to correctly invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description does not explain any parameter semantics; it does not compensate for the low coverage. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions for most parameters.

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 'Create a new Redmine issue' clearly states the action (create) and resource (Redmine issue). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_issue, list_issues, and add_comment, but lacks specificity about the scope of creation.

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. For example, it doesn't mention whether it requires authentication or which fields are crucial. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools mentioned.

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

Deploy Server