projects_updateUpdates Redmine project attributes by ID, changing only the fields passed.
Updates project attributes; only the fields passed change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Project id or identifier. | |
| name | No | ||
| homepage | No | ||
| is_public | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| tracker_ids | No | ||
| enabled_module_names | No |
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=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine value by disclosing PATCH-style semantics ('only the fields passed change'), which is not derivable from the annotations. However, it says nothing about permissions, validation failures, or effects on unspecified fields beyond the one clause.
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 with the key partial-update constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is dense and efficient, though very sparse for a 7-parameter mutation.
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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and 14% schema coverage, the description should carry much more weight. It gives only partial-update semantics, leaving the meaning of each field, permission requirements, and outcomes unspecified.
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 14% — only 'id' is documented, leaving name, homepage, is_public, description, tracker_ids, and enabled_module_names undocumented. The description's mention of 'fields passed' gives a general mental model but no per-parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (updates) and resource (project attributes), and the clause 'only the fields passed change' clarifies the partial-update semantics. It does not differentiate from siblings like projects_update_member or projects_add_member, so it stops short of a 5.
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 tool versus alternatives such as projects_create, projects_update_member, or projects_add_member. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.