Skip to main content
Glama

atlassian-mcp__jira_transition_issue

Transition a Jira issue to a new workflow status. Use jira_get_transitions first to find valid transition IDs.

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>",
      "transition_id": "<transition_id>"
    },
    "name": "atlassian-mcp__jira_transition_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
issue_keyYesThe issue key (e.g. PROJ-123)
transition_idYesThe transition ID (from jira_get_transitions)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workflow-status context but says nothing about side effects (status history entries, notifications) or what happens on an invalid transition ID. Adequate, not rich.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what to do and how to get a valid transition ID. Only minor gaps remain around failure behavior for invalid IDs.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters, including that transition_id comes from jira_get_transitions. The description's mention of transition IDs merely echoes that, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb (transition) and resource (Jira issue) and states the scope (to a new workflow status). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as jira_get_transitions and jira_update_issue.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: call jira_get_transitions first to obtain valid transition IDs. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. editing fields vs. changing status), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.