Redmine MCP Server

createProject

Create a Redmine project with a name and identifier, and optionally set description, parent, visibility, trackers, and more. This MCP server tool handles project creation for the Redmine system.

Instructions

Create project

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": "createProject"
  }
}

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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, response format, or reversibility. 'Create project' implies a mutation but gives no indication of what happens or what is returned.

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 concise but under-specified. It is a minimal restatement of the tool name, not a well-structured explanation. Conciseness is beneficial only when it conveys necessary information, which this does not.

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 complexity (nested project object, format parameter, many sibling operations) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain what a project is, what fields are required, or how this relates to other project tools.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The complex nested schema for bodyParams and pathParams is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on required fields like name and identifier or the format parameter.

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 project' is a tautology of the tool name 'createProject', restating the action without adding any detail. It is clear in verb and resource but provides no additional context or differentiation from siblings beyond the verb itself.

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 like updateProject, deleteProject, or archiveProject. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server