Redmine MCP Server

createIssueRelation

Establish a dependency or association between two Redmine issues by specifying the relation type and optional delay.

Instructions

Create issue relation

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": "createIssueRelation"
  }
}

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

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, which implies a write operation. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond that—no mention of side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate relations. Since the description carries the burden (only one annotation), it falls short.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise—a single short sentence. However, it is under-specified and lacks any structure that would help the agent parse intent. It is not overly verbose, but its brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, an enum for relation_type, and no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of fields, allowed values, or the effects of creating a relation, leaving the agent without critical context for correct invocation.

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 description must explain the parameters. It does not mention pathParams or bodyParams at all, nor the required fields like relation_type or issue_to_id. The agent is left to infer everything from the raw schema, which lacks textual meaning.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Create issue relation'), but it does not specify the scope or distinguish it from closely related siblings like addRelatedIssue. It is not a tautology, but it lacks any detail about what kind of relation or context, making it only minimally clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as addRelatedIssue or deleteIssueRelation. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without directional help.

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

Deploy Server