Redmine MCP Server

redmine_delete_attachment

Delete an attachment from Redmine using its attachment ID. Permanently removes the file from the system, helping clean up unwanted or outdated attachments.

Instructions

Delete an attachment from 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_delete_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Attachment ID to delete

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 merely says 'Delete an attachment from Redmine' without indicating that deletion is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or if there are cascading effects. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description provides the core action and resource. However, it omits details about return values, error handling, or irreversible effects, which are relevant for a delete operation. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter (id), with description 'Attachment ID to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The parameter semantics are fully handled by 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 clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (attachment from Redmine), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like redmine_get_attachment and redmine_update_attachment. The verb+resource structure is unambiguous.

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 description implies usage (use when you want to delete an attachment) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, but the intent is clear from the name and description.

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