Redmine MCP Server

updateAttachment

Update attachment metadata in Redmine: change filename or description using the attachment ID and new values.

Instructions

Update attachment

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": "updateAttachment"
  }
}

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

D1.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it offers none. 'Update attachment' fails to mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, return format, or whether it modifies the file content or only metadata, leaving the agent completely uninformed about the tool's behavior.

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?

At only two words, the description is minimal, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is not front-loaded with useful information because it contains no information beyond the tool name, and every word is essentially redundant.

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?

The tool has nested objects, two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no contextual detail. It fails to explain request/response semantics, expected usage, or how it fits among the extensive list of sibling tools, making it wholly inadequate for an agent to operate correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The schema property names (attachmentId, filename, description, format) give some inherent hints, but the description adds no value in clarifying what these parameters mean, how they relate, or what values are expected.

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 'Update attachment' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'updateAttachment', adding no new information. It identifies the verb and resource but lacks any scope or distinction from the many other attachment-related sibling tools, making it a tautology.

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 getAttachment, deleteAttachment, or uploadAttachmentFromLocalFile. The description gives no context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or conditions that would signal this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server