Redmine MCP Server

Update Project

update_project

Modify an existing Redmine project's name, description, visibility, parent, trackers, modules, or custom fields by specifying its project ID and the values to change.

Instructions

Update an existing project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`homepage`	No
`is_public`	No
`parent_id`	No
`project_id`	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

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations and almost no description content, the tool's behavioral traits are completely undisclosed. For a mutation with 13 optional parameters, an agent cannot tell whether updates are partial or full, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects occur.

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 sentence is technically concise, but it is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity. It fails to front-load any useful detail for a 13-parameter mutation, making the brevity a liability rather than a strength.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, and only one required parameter, the description is drastically incomplete. While an output schema exists, that does not excuse the absence of any information about the update behavior, parameter meanings, or usage constraints.

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 adds no meaning for any of the 13 parameters. With such low coverage, the description must compensate, but it offers nothing beyond the tool's name.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing project'), making the tool's basic function clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_project, delete_project, or archive_project beyond the verb itself.

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 such as archive_project or update_issue, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description provides only the bare action.

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

Deploy Server