Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

atlassian-mcp__jira_link_issues

Link two Jira issues, such as one blocking another or one duplicating another. Takes the two issue keys and a link type, by its name ("Blocks") or by the phrase it reads with from the first issue ("blocks", "is blocked by", "relates to"), so issue_key blocks other_issue_key, or is blocked by it. The link types a site has are listed by jira_list_issue_links. An unknown type is refused with the site's types listed, and nothing is sent. Returns the new link and every link of the first issue afterwards, as Jira reports them.

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": {
      "issue_key": "<issue_key>",
      "other_issue_key": "<other_issue_key>",
      "link_type": "<link_type>"
    },
    "name": "atlassian-mcp__jira_link_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
commentNoA comment added with the link (plain text, will be converted to ADF)
issue_keyYesThe issue the link phrase is said of (e.g. PROJ-123 in "PROJ-123 blocks PROJ-124")
link_typeYesThe link type's name, or the phrase that reads from issue_key to other_issue_key (e.g. "blocks", "is blocked by", "relates to", "duplicates")
other_issue_keyYesThe other issue (e.g. PROJ-124)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare a mutating but non-destructive operation, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: unknown types are refused with the site's types listed and nothing is sent, plus the return payload includes the new link and all links of the first issue. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether the link can be removed afterwards, or the side effect of the optional comment parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

One front-loaded paragraph with no filler; the purpose, the direction rule, the discovery alternative and the failure mode all appear in the first half. The clause explaining the phrase direction ('so issue_key blocks other_issue_key, or is blocked by it') is slightly tangled to parse, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the new link plus the refreshed link list. Validation failure behavior is covered too; only the comment side effect and account selection are left unmentioned, both of which the schema documents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds directional semantics the schema only hints at: the link type may be given as a name or as a phrase read from issue_key, so 'A blocks B' and 'A is blocked by B' point opposite ways. The account and comment parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Link two Jira issues') and immediately gives examples (blocking, duplicating) that separate it from read-oriented siblings like jira_list_issue_links. The agent knows exactly what effect the call has without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names jira_list_issue_links as the way to discover valid link types, which is a real routing rule for a prerequisite step. It doesn't state any when-not-to-use condition (e.g., cross-site links, or when a duplicate should be created instead), so it stops short of the top band.

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

All DataToRAG toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources