redmine-mcp-stdio

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update issue

update_issue

Destructive

Update any field of an existing Redmine issue, including status, priority, assignee, description, and progress. Add notes to the issue journal.

Instructions

Update fields of an existing 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Issue id to update
`notes`	No	Comment added to the issue journal
`subject`	No
`status_id`	No
`done_ratio`	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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, which is consistent with the 'Update' verb. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as authentication requirements, error handling, or the fact that only provided fields are updated (partial update). With annotations present, the description's lack of additional transparency is noticeable.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise but too brief for a tool with eight parameters, failing to convey necessary detail while still being efficient.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, destructive operations), the description should mention that this is a partial update, that the issue must exist, and perhaps the effect on the journal. The current description leaves the agent underinformed.

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 25% (two out of eight parameters have descriptions); the description does not help interpret the remaining six parameters. It merely says 'Update fields' without explaining what each field does, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'fields of an existing Redmine issue', making the purpose immediately obvious and distinguishable from sibling tools like create_issue and get_issue.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_comment for comments only, or create_issue for new issues). The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or recommended usage scenarios.

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

Deploy Server