Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

atlassian-mcp__jira_update_issue

Destructive

Update an existing Jira issue. You can change the summary, description, and/or set arbitrary fields via additional_fields.

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>"
    },
    "name": "atlassian-mcp__jira_update_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.
summaryNoNew summary / title
issue_keyYesThe issue key (e.g. PROJ-123)
descriptionNoNew description (plain text, will be converted to ADF)
additional_fieldsNoAdditional fields to set, as a JSON object of field ID to value (e.g. {"priority": {"name": "High"}})

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is disclosed structurally. The description adds nothing about what gets overwritten, whether omitted fields are preserved, or that some fields (e.g. status) cannot be set here, which is exactly the context a mutation tool needs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mutable surface; nothing extraneous. Slightly redundant with the schema's field list, but not wasteful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and a fully documented input schema, the definition covers the calling contract minimally. It omits the behavioral caveats that matter for a destructive update tool (field overwrite semantics, status-change exclusion), leaving the definition adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains issue_key, account, summary, description ADF conversion, and the additional_fields JSON shape. The description only restates the field names, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing Jira issue") and enumerates the mutable surface (summary, description, arbitrary fields), which separates it from jira_create_issue and jira_delete_issue. It does not differentiate from jira_transition_issue, which also mutates an issue, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by what the tool can change; there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus jira_transition_issue (status changes) or jira_add_comment (commenting). An agent could plausibly try to change status through additional_fields and fail.

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