Redmine MCP Server

createIssue

Create a new Redmine issue by specifying project ID and subject, with options for description, priority, assignee, and more.

Instructions

Create issue

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": {
      "pathParams": "<pathParams>",
      "bodyParams": "<bodyParams>"
    },
    "name": "createIssue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bodyParams`	Yes
`pathParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: false, indicating the tool is a write operation. The description 'Create issue' merely reiterates this without adding any new behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects, or reversibility. It does not contradict the annotations, but provides no extra value beyond them.

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, but this reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load any useful information and offers no structure beyond a single verb phrase. While it is brief, it fails to be informative.

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?

The tool has a complex input schema with many nested objects and required fields, yet the description provides no explanation of these requirements or expected inputs. There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at return values or behavior, but it does not. The description is grossly inadequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description does not mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The agent must rely entirely on field names like project_id and subject, which are not self-evident without context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Create issue', which directly restates the tool name without adding any differentiation from sibling tools like createProject or createNews. It uses a clear verb and resource, but it is essentially a tautology and does not clarify what an 'issue' is in this context or what distinguishes it from other creation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updateIssue or getIssues. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when creating an issue is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server