Redmine MCP Server

redmine_upload_file

Upload a file to Redmine and get an upload token for attaching to issues or creating file entries.

Instructions

Upload a file to Redmine and get an upload token. The token can then be used with redmine_create_file or when creating/updating issues with attachments.

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": {
      "content_base64": "<content_base64>"
    },
    "name": "redmine_upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filename`	No	Original filename (optional, used in Content-Disposition header)
`content_base64`	Yes	File content encoded as a base64 string

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the upload operation and token output, but lacks details on authentication requirements, file size limits, or token expiration. It is adequate but minimal.

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 contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the purpose and downstream usage. It does not over-explain but provides the necessary context for the token workflow.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool uploads a file to Redmine and returns an upload token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the token's role with redmine_create_file or issue attachments, making its specific purpose clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: before using redmine_create_file or when attaching files to issues. It provides a clear usage context but does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, though the intended workflow is evident.

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