Redmine MCP Server

updateUser

Update a Redmine user's details, preferences, and settings by specifying the user ID and the fields to modify.

Instructions

Update user

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": "updateUser"
  }
}

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

Behavior1/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals a write operation, and the description simply repeats this implication without adding substantive behavioral detail. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, update semantics (partial vs. full), or response behavior. The description contributes nothing 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.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While brief, 'Update user' is under-specification, not effective conciseness. There is no structure, no front-loading of critical details, and every word adds minimal value. A single verb-noun phrase is insufficient for a complex tool with two required parameters and nested objects.

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 (nested bodyParams with many preferences, user fields), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose beyond the obvious, does not clarify update behavior, and fails to provide the context needed to invoke it correctly. No output schema means the description should have explained return values, but it is silent.

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%, so the description carries no parameter information. The schema itself is rich with nested properties, but the description adds no meaning to help an agent understand parameter purpose, constraints, or relationships. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Update user' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name (updateUser). It provides no detail about what fields can be updated, the resource context, or how it differs from sibling tools like createUser, deleteUser, or updateMyAccount.

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. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios. The agent is left to infer when 'Update user' is appropriate, and the description offers no help in disambiguating from similar CRUD operations.

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

Deploy Server