Skip to main content
Glama
devyhan

redmine-mcp

by devyhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create an issue

issues_create

Creates an issue in a Redmine project with subject, assignee, dates, attachments, and custom fields, then returns the new issue ID for tracking.

Instructions

Creates an issue in a project. Returns the created issue (with its id).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectYesSubject.
uploadsNoTokens from files_upload to attach on creation.
due_dateNoYYYY-MM-DD.
status_idNoStatus id.
done_ratioNoDone %.
project_idYesProject id or identifier.
start_dateNoYYYY-MM-DD.
tracker_idNoTracker id (defaults to the project default).
category_idNoCategory id.
descriptionNoDescription (Textile by default).
priority_idNoPriority id.
custom_fieldsNoCustom field values.
assigned_to_idNoAssignee user id, login, or "Firstname Lastname" (resolved to an id before the call).
estimated_hoursNoEstimated hours.
parent_issue_idNoParent issue id for subtasks.
fixed_version_idNoTarget version id.
watcher_user_idsNoWatcher user ids.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_id / description
      Previous value: -"Assignee user id."New value: +"Assignee user id, login, or \"Firstname Lastname\" (resolved to an id before the call)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_id / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • removedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_id / minimum
      Removed value: --9007199254740991
    • removedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_id / type
      Removed value: -"integer"
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the call returns the created issue including its id, which tells the agent how to chain follow-up calls, but says nothing about required permissions, validation errors, or defaults (e.g. tracker defaulting, Textile body).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler; the return-value note is placed where it reads naturally. It borders on too terse for a 17-parameter mutation, but no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully documents all 17 fields, so the description only needs to frame the operation and its outcome — which it partially does. It omits any warning about attachments requiring a prior files_upload call and gives no hint about failure modes, leaving the definition minimally adequate for a create operation of this complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% across all 17 parameters, including non-obvious ones like uploads tokens from files_upload and assignee resolution to an id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Creates an issue in a project") and adds the return value ("Returns the created issue (with its id)"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like issues_update or issues_add_note by name, but never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus issues_update (for modifying an existing issue) or issues_add_note (for commenting). No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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