Redmine MCP Server

createGroup

Create a Redmine group with a name, member user IDs, and custom field values. Use it to organize users and manage access permissions.

Instructions

Create group

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": {
      "pathParams": "<pathParams>",
      "bodyParams": "<bodyParams>"
    },
    "name": "createGroup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bodyParams`	Yes
`pathParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. 'Create group' only states the operation type; it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While the description is extremely brief, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any context or elaboration, making it an inefficient communication of the tool's functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the moderate complexity of the schema (nested group object, enum format, required fields), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to provide essential context about what a group is, how the parameters relate, or what to expect in the response.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description 'Create group' provides no explanation of parameter meanings, relationships, or required structure. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions; the agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names like 'format' and 'group'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create group' simply restates the tool name 'createGroup' in natural language, adding no new information about the purpose or scope. It is a tautology rather than an independent explanation, so it cannot distinguish the tool from siblings beyond what the name already conveys.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updateGroup or deleteGroup, nor any prerequisites or context. There is no mention of whether groups must exist first, what happens to associated users, or when this tool is preferred.

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

Deploy Server