Redmine MCP Server

Create Project

create_project

Create a new Redmine project by specifying its name and identifier, then set visibility, parent, modules, and defaults to structure your work.

Instructions

Create a new project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`homepage`	No
`is_public`	No
`parent_id`	No
`identifier`	Yes
`description`	No
`tracker_ids`	No
`inherit_members`	No
`default_version_id`	No
`custom_field_values`	No
`enabled_module_names`	No
`default_assigned_to_id`	No
`issue_custom_field_ids`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare write intent. Nothing is said about permission requirements, uniqueness/conflict behavior for the identifier, side effects, or whether the new project is immediately visible.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — it fails to earn its place by conveying no information beyond the title.

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 13-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but every input-side gap remains unaddressed.

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% across 13 parameters, and the description adds zero meaning for any of them. An agent gets no guidance on name vs identifier, parent_id, tracker_ids, enabled_module_names, or the many other optional fields.

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 'Create a new project' merely restates the tool name and title verbatim, providing no elaboration on scope, resulting artifact, or relationship to siblings like create_issue or list_projects. It is a tautology rather than a distinct statement of purpose.

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 create a project versus using update_project, archive_project, or listing existing ones via list_projects. No prerequisites, no mention that identifier must be unique, and no exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server