Redmine MCP Server

redmine_create_file

Attach a previously uploaded file to a Redmine project using its upload token, with optional version and description.

Instructions

Add a previously uploaded file to a project

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_create_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	Yes	Upload token returned by redmine_upload_file
`filename`	No	Filename to use
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID or identifier
`version_id`	No	Version ID to associate the file with
`description`	No	File description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not indicate whether the operation is reversible, whether it modifies the file's state, or any permission requirements. This leaves the agent without information about side effects or prerequisites.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. Every word is essential and the description is easy to parse at a glance.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple operation but lacks context about the prerequisite upload step and the resulting state changes. The schema covers parameter details, but the description could mention the expected workflow (upload first, then add) for better completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds the context that the file is 'previously uploaded', which aligns with the token parameter, but it does not enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses the verb 'Add' with a specific resource ('previously uploaded file') and target ('project'), clearly distinguishing it from upload and list operations. It is concise and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.

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 phrase 'previously uploaded' implies that the file must already exist via the upload tool, and the token parameter from redmine_upload_file reinforces this workflow. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance or comparison with other tools like redmine_list_files.

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