Redmine MCP Server

redmine_create_time_entry

Record time spent on Redmine issues or projects by creating a time entry with hours, activity, comments, date, and custom fields.

Instructions

Create a new time entry

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": {
      "hours": "<hours>",
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_create_time_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hours`	Yes	Time spent in hours
`user_id`	No	User ID (admin only, defaults to current user)
`comments`	No	Description of work done
`issue_id`	No	Issue ID (either issue_id or project_id is required)
`spent_on`	No	Date when time was spent (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today)
`project_id`	No	Project ID (either issue_id or project_id is required)
`activity_id`	Yes	Activity ID
`custom_field_values`	No	Custom field values as key-value pairs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that a new time entry is created, offering no information about side effects, permission requirements, constraints on parameters, or what the response will contain. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (6 words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified and adds no value beyond the tool name. The brevity is not a virtue here because it omits crucial context, so it does not earn its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a create tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The single-sentence description is wholly insufficient to orient an agent on how to correctly invoke this tool. Even with the schema's parameter details, crucial context about when to use it and what to expect is missing.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter information or compensate for gaps, but since the schema is fully self-sufficient, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (time entry), which distinguishes it from sibling update/delete/list operations by name. However, it adds no additional context beyond the tool name itself, so it doesn't fully earn the highest score.

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 vs. alternatives like redmine_update_time_entry or redmine_list_time_entries. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the need for an issue_id or project_id, nor any indication of typical use cases.

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