redmine-mcp

by devyhan

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Update an issue

issues_update

Idempotent

Updates selected issue attributes without changing other fields and appends a journal note when provided.

Instructions

Updates issue attributes; only the fields passed change. Pass notes to append a journal entry with the update.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "issues_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Issue id.
`notes`	No	Journal note appended with the update.
`subject`	No
`uploads`	No	Tokens from files_upload to attach with the update.
`due_date`	No
`status_id`	No
`done_ratio`	No
`start_date`	No
`category_id`	No
`description`	No
`priority_id`	No
`custom_fields`	No
`private_notes`	No	Mark the appended note private.
`assigned_to_id`	No
`estimated_hours`	No
`parent_issue_id`	No
`fixed_version_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.0Oct 23, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_id / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
```
- 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"
```
First observedv0.2.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine unannotated context — that unspecified fields are preserved and that notes appends a journal entry — but says nothing about permissions, validation failures, or whether fields can be cleared (e.g. null/empty sentinels).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact clauses with the partial-update rule front-loaded and no filler; an agent gets the essential semantics in one sentence.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A 17-parameter mutation tool at 24% schema coverage with no output schema and no mention of return behavior or error conditions; the description is far too thin for this surface area, leaving most parameters' semantics unknown.

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?

With 17 parameters and only 24% schema coverage, the description must compensate, yet it explains only the notes parameter. The numerous *_id fields, date formats, custom_fields array shape, and the string form of assigned_to_id (e.g. 'me' vs numeric id) go undocumented in either place.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the key semantic 'only the fields passed change', which distinguishes it from a full-replace update. It does not differentiate from the very similar sibling issues_add_note, which also appends a journal entry, leaving overlap an agent must resolve on its own.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The partial-update rule implies how to use it (pass only what changes), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as issues_add_note for note-only writes or issues_create for new issues.

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