Provides tools to retrieve Redmine issue details by issue key, including subject, description, comments, and direct link.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Redmine MCP Server fetch details for task PROJECT-123"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Сервер протокола контекста модели (MCP), который подключается к Redmine для получения деталей задачи по её ключу (например, PROJECT-123).
Этот сервер MCP действует как мост между ИИ-ассистентами и Redmine, позволяя инструментам ИИ получать подробную информацию о задачах Redmine. Когда ИИ-ассистент сталкивается с ключом задачи (например, PROJECT-123) в коде или разговоре, он может использовать этот сервер для получения полного контекста этой задачи, включая:
Идентификатор и ключ задачи
Название трекера (например, Ошибка, Функция)
Тему и описание
Комментарии/журнал
Прямую ссылку на задачу
Это позволяет ИИ-ассистентам предоставлять более информированные ответы, понимая полный контекст упомянутых задач.
Related MCP server: Redmine MCP Server
Node.js 20+
Перед использованием вам надо собрать проект:
npm install
npm run buildСервер предоставляет один инструмент:
redmine_get_issue_contextПолучить задачу Redmine по ключу.
Параметры:
taskKey (строка): Ключ задачи, например PROJECT-123
Возвращает:
{
"key": "PROJECT-123",
"id": 123,
"trackerName": "Feature",
"subject": "Implement new feature",
"description": "Detailed description of the feature...",
"comments": [
"First comment...",
"Second comment..."
],
"url": "https://project.my-redmine.com/issues/123"
}Добавьте следующее в файл конфигурации Qwen Code settings.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"redmine": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["dist/server.js"],
"cwd": "/path/to/redmine-mcp/folder",
"env": {
"REDMINE_BASE_URL": "https://project.my-redmine.com",
"REDMINE_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
},
"timeout": 60000,
"trust": true
}
}
}Замените:
cwd на путь до репозитория с этим MCP сервером
REDMINE_BASE_URL на https://project.cdek.ru
REDMINE_API_KEY на ваше ключ доступа
# Сборка
npm run build
# Режим наблюдения
npm run build:watchGet Redmine issue by task key (e.g., PROJECT-123): returns JSON with id/key/tracker/subject/description/comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskKey | Yes | Task key like PROJECT-123 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with specific fields), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, how errors are handled (e.g., if the task key is invalid or the issue does not exist), or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. The description adds some value by listing the returned fields, but it lacks depth in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the purpose, the input example, and the output structure without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. It does not discuss error cases or side effects, but for a straightforward getter, the description is sufficiently complete. The lack of annotations is compensated by the clear mention of returned JSON fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a clear description for taskKey, including a pattern and example. The description adds a slightly different example but does not provide additional semantic information beyond what the schema contains. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: "Get Redmine issue by task key" with a concrete example (PROJECT-123) and explicitly lists the return fields (id/key/tracker/subject/description/comments). It is specific, uses a clear verb+resource structure, and leaves no ambiguity about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: it tells you it fetches an issue by its task key, which is sufficient in the absence of sibling tools. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools provided, this vagueness is not critical, but the lack of explicit context prevents a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0redmine_get_issue_contextScored across 1 tool
With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly scoped to retrieving Redmine issue context by task key.
The tool name follows a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern with a server-specific prefix. With only one tool, there are no mixed conventions or inconsistencies to penalize.
A single tool for a Redmine server is far too few for the implied scope. The server name suggests a broader integration, and one tool provides minimal utility, making the count inappropriate.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Redmine integration. It only offers a read operation, lacking create, update, delete, list, search, or comment functionality, which are essential for meaningful issue management.
Task management for people and AI agents, with scoped OAuth access to issues, projects, and docs.
Task manager your agent can fully operate: boards, tasks, sprints, roles, worklogs, day planner.
Create and manage MeisterTask projects, tasks, and notes from your AI assistant.
Remote MCP for Kanban AI boards—manage projects, tasks, and comments from AI tools.
