Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redmine MCP Server

Redmine MCP Server

by onozaty
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

updateJournal

Modify existing journal entries in Redmine by updating notes or privacy settings. Specify the journal ID and new values to apply changes.

Instructions

Update journal

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": "updateJournal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyParamsYes
pathParamsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description says 'update', which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but it adds no additional behavioral context such as permissions, side effects, or reversibility. With sparse annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implied mutation.

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 very short, but that brevity is due to under-specification rather than efficient writing. It lacks essential structured information and thus is not appropriately concise.

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 has nested objects, an enum, required parameters, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the request structure, field semantics, or expected outcome, making it inadequate 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%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters. The agent cannot infer the meaning of 'format', 'journalId', 'notes', or 'private_notes' from the description, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the verb 'update' and the resource 'journal', so the core purpose is clear. However, it provides no detail about what aspects of the journal are updatable or any specific scope, making it minimally informative but not misleading.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. While the resource name distinguishes it from sibling update tools, the description gives no explicit direction for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools