Redmine MCP Server

redmine_create_or_update_wiki_page

Create or update a Redmine wiki page by providing project ID, title, and Markdown content. Optionally set a parent page for sub-pages.

Instructions

Create a new wiki page or update existing one

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>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_create_or_update_wiki_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Wiki page content (in Markdown format)
`title`	Yes	Wiki page title
`comments`	No	Comments about this change
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID or identifier
`parent_title`	No	Parent page title (for creating sub-pages)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'create or update' but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, how overwriting works, any authorization requirements, or what the response contains. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is so brief that it omits important context, making it efficient but somewhat under-specified.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only states the basic purpose and leaves out critical details such as how the page is identified (project_id and title), the role of comments and parent_title, or what the API returns after success. This is insufficient for a tool with 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%, so the parameters are fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action (create or update) and the resource (wiki page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like redmine_delete_wiki_page, redmine_get_wiki_page, and redmine_list_wiki_pages by emphasizing the upsert behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to check whether the page exists, or when creation vs. update is appropriate.

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