issues_create_relationCreate a relation between two Redmine issues to define dependencies, duplicates, or sequences using relation types like blocks or precedes.
Links two issues (relates, blocks, duplicates, precedes, …).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| delay | No | Delay in days (precedes/follows only). | |
| issue_id | Yes | Issue id owning the relation. | |
| issue_to_id | Yes | Related issue id. | |
| relation_type | No | Relation type. | relates |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – it does not say what happens if the relation already exists (relevant for a non-idempotent create) or what errors to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero waste. Brevity is appropriate here, though the ellipsis-truncated type list is slightly informal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a non-idempotent mutation with a fully documented schema and annotations present, the minimum viable bar is met, but the description omits any mention of duplicate-relation behavior or failure modes an agent would want before calling a create.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the enum and the delay field are already documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the relation-type values that the schema enum already lists, adding no syntax or format detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (links) and resource (two issues) with examples of relation types, so the agent can tell it apart from issues_list_relations and issues_delete_relation. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create-a-relation action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as issues_delete_relation or issues_list_relations, and no prerequisites mentioned. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.