Redmine MCP Server

updateIssue

Update an existing Redmine issue by specifying its ID and providing the fields to modify, such as status, priority, assignee, notes, or due date.

Instructions

Update 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": "updateIssue"
  }
}

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

D1.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals that this is a mutating operation. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that—no mention of side effects, reversibility, authorization requirements, or what happens on partial updates. With annotation coverage, the bar is lower but still unmet; the description contributes no extra context.

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 a single short sentence, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no useful structure or front-loading of key information. It fails to convey even the basic operation's scope.

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 complex schema (nested objects, many optional fields, no output schema, no descriptions), this description is grossly inadequate. An agent has no idea what fields are expected, what the response looks like, or what constraints apply. The complete lack of context makes this tool nearly impossible to use correctly 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 mentions no parameters at all. The tool has a nested bodyParams object with many fields (status_id, priority_id, custom_fields, etc.) but none are explained. The agent must rely solely on parameter 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.

Purpose1/5

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

The description 'Update issue' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name. It provides no specificity about what kind of issue, which fields can be updated, or how this differs from createIssue. An agent cannot infer the actual operation beyond the name, making it nearly useless for disambiguation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like createIssue or other sibling tools. There is no mention of required context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description offers zero steerage.

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

Deploy Server