Redmine MCP Server

reopenProject

Reopens a closed Redmine project by specifying project ID and format (json/xml) to restore its active status.

Instructions

Reopen project

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": "reopenProject"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pathParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates a mutating operation, and the description's 'Reopen' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation—no mention of side effects, permissions, or state requirements. It does not contradict the annotation, but it contributes minimal value.

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 not concise but under-specified; 'Reopen project' is a fragment that omits essential context. While it is short, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, leaving the agent with little actionable information.

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?

For a tool with a nested parameter structure, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It does not explain what 'reopen' entails, how it relates to closeProject, or what the format parameter controls, making the tool practically unusable without external knowledge.

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 the parameters 'format' or 'projectId'. The nested structure is opaque, and the description provides no meaning beyond what the property names imply. This is a significant gap for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 'Reopen project' clearly states a verb and resource, so it is not a tautology. However, it lacks any differentiation from sibling tools like unarchiveProject or closeProject; an agent cannot tell what 'reopen' specifically does or how it differs from similar actions.

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 versus alternatives such as unarchiveProject or closeProject. No context about prerequisites (e.g., project must be closed) or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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

Deploy Server