Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by compasify
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

updateIssue

Update an existing Redmine issue by specifying its ID and the fields to modify, including status, assignee, priority, dates, notes, and custom fields.

Instructions

Update 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": {
      "pathParams": "<pathParams>",
      "bodyParams": "<bodyParams>"
    },
    "name": "updateIssue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyParamsYes
pathParamsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.4

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Update issue' reveals nothing about auth requirements, partial update semantics, effect of omitted fields, or return values. It is a bare mutation statement with no additional context.

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?

Two words is not conciseness but under-specification. The description is far too minimal for the complexity of the operation and does not earn its place relative to the rich input schema.

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?

This is a complex update operation with a large body schema, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-line tautology is grossly insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema is rich (pathParams with format and issueId, and a detailed bodyParams.issue object), but with 0% schema description coverage and no compensation from the description, the agent gets no guidance on how to use the parameters.

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 issue' is a tautology of the tool name, restating the verb and resource without adding any scope or detail. It barely distinguishes from other issue-related tools, and there is no mention of what aspects of an issue can be updated.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no hint about when to prefer this tool over siblings like createIssue, deleteIssue, or getIssue, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools