Redmine MCP Server

redmine_update_time_entry

Update existing Redmine time entries by ID to adjust hours, comments, date, project, activity, or custom fields for accurate time tracking.

Instructions

Update an existing 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_update_time_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Time entry ID to update
`hours`	No	Time spent in hours
`comments`	No	Description of work done
`issue_id`	No	Issue ID
`spent_on`	No	Date when time was spent (YYYY-MM-DD)
`project_id`	No	Project ID
`activity_id`	No	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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention whether updates are partial or full, return values, error handling, or required permissions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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 8 parameters, including a nested object, and no output schema. The description is too sparse to cover update semantics, validation, or response format, leaving the agent uncertain about behavior.

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?

All 8 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so the schema provides full coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic context beyond what is already in 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 states 'Update an existing time entry' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools for creating, deleting, or viewing time entries.

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 when modifying an existing time entry, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other time-entry tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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