Redmine MCP Server

redmine_custom_request

Make direct HTTP requests to the Redmine API to retrieve, create, update, or delete any resource.

Instructions

Make a custom API request to Redmine

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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_custom_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Request body data (for POST/PUT)
`path`	Yes	API path (e.g., "/issues.json")
`method`	Yes	HTTP method
`params`	No	Query parameters (for GET)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It omits that the tool can perform destructive operations (PUT, DELETE), requires authentication, or returns raw responses. This is a significant gap for a generic request tool that can mutate Redmine data.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool definition.

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?

For a generic, powerful tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the base URL, authentication requirements, possible dangers of arbitrary requests, or how to interpret responses. This would leave an agent under-informed when deciding to invoke it.

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 already provides full descriptions for all parameters (method enum, path example, data, params), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline stands.

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 tool makes a custom API request to Redmine, with a specific verb and resource. It implies a generic catch-all role, distinguishing it from the specific sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use for operations without a dedicated tool'.

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 the many sibling tools. The word 'custom' hints at using it for unsupported operations, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or examples of appropriate use cases.

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