Redmine MCP Server

updateVersion

Update an existing Redmine version by specifying its ID and providing fields to modify. Change name, status, sharing, due date, description, custom fields, or wiki page title.

Instructions

Update version

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": "updateVersion"
  }
}

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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Update version', which is ambiguous and fails to note that this is a mutation, potential side effects, authorization needs, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The phrase 'Update version' does not earn its place because it conveys no more than the tool name itself, providing no actionable information.

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 objects, enums, two required parameters) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain the version resource, the meaning of fields, or the update semantics, making it nearly useless for correct invocation.

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 does not mention any parameters. The schema's nested objects (bodyParams.version with fields like name, status, sharing, due_date) are entirely unexplained. The description adds zero semantic value to 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 version' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'updateVersion'. It provides no information about what 'version' refers to, what fields can be changed, or how this differs from other update tools like updateIssue or updateProject.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createVersion or getVersions. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this update should be applied.

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

Deploy Server