Redmine MCP Server

createIssueRelation

Create a relation between a Redmine issue and another issue by specifying the target issue ID and the relation type, such as relates, blocks, or duplicates.

Instructions

Create issue relation

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": "createIssueRelation"
  }
}

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

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the creation action and says nothing about side effects, required permissions, possible errors, or the shape of the created relation. This is 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?

The description is extremely short, which is not conciseness but under-specification. It wastes the opportunity to add value and offers no structure beyond a single sentence that repeats the tool name.

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 tool's nested parameters (pathParams and bodyParams), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the purpose of the issueId path parameter, the meaning of the relation object, or any usage context, making it minimally usable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what parameters mean. It adds no parameter information whatsoever, leaving the agent to rely solely on the raw schema, which is not documented in prose.

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 issue relation' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'createIssueRelation' in natural language. It provides no additional specificity about scope or how it differs from sibling tools like addRelatedIssue or getIssueRelations.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the need to specify issue_to_id and relation_type, nor any prerequisites like existing issues, and it never refers to sibling relation tools.

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

Deploy Server