Redmine MCP Server

deleteTimeEntry

Delete a specific time entry from Redmine by providing its ID and format. Removes the entry permanently to manage time tracking records.

Instructions

Delete 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>"
    },
    "name": "deleteTimeEntry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pathParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint:false already indicates a mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the deletion is irreversible, the scope of deletion, or any side effects. With no extra context provided, the description does not go beyond the annotation.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks any additional structure. It does front-load the key action, but it also omits any guidance or context that would aid an agent. It is not verbose, but it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

For a tool with a nested parameter object and no output schema, the description is insufficiently detailed. It does not explain what the format parameter controls, what a valid timeEntryId is, or what the tool returns. The agent would need to rely on the schema alone, which is minimal.

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?

The schema documents two parameters, format and timeEntryId, but the description does not explain their purpose or format constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'time entry', which differentiates it from sibling tools like getTimeEntry, updateTimeEntry, and createTimeEntry. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when to prefer alternatives. The description provides no contextual information about when a time entry should be deleted or any preconditions.

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

Deploy Server