Redmine MCP Server

createTimeEntry

Log work hours to Redmine projects or issues by providing details like hours, project, issue, and activity.

Instructions

Create 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": {
      "pathParams": "<pathParams>",
      "bodyParams": "<bodyParams>"
    },
    "name": "createTimeEntry"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false indicates a write operation, and the description 'Create' aligns with this. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as required permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. With minimal annotations, the description does not compensate for missing disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, earning its place by stating the core action. However, it is under-specified, providing only the verb and object without any elaboration, making it more of a placeholder than a useful description.

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—two required top-level parameters, nested objects, many optional fields, and no output schema—the description is severely inadequate. It offers no information about parameter structure, required fields, or expected behavior, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request without consulting other sources.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The nested bodyParams object contains many fields (hours, user_id, comments, etc.) with no descriptions, and the description provides no hints about their meaning or relationships. The agent must rely solely on field names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear verb 'Create' and a specific resource 'time entry', making the action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like updateTimeEntry or deleteTimeEntry, relying solely on the verb to signal intent. This is clear but minimal.

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. The description neither mentions prerequisites nor excludes scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb alone. No explicit when/when-not context is provided.

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

Deploy Server