Skip to main content
Glama

update_issue

Update an issue: any of summary, description, type, assignee, priority, labels, dueDate, parentKey, fixVersions, or status (which performs the transition, and fires the project's rules — a rule may append a checklist to the description, in which case 'description' is listed in 'changed'). Only the fields you pass are changed. A project's workflow may put conditions on a move — that only certain people may make it, or that it must set certain fields — and a refusal names the condition and, where it is about who you are, lists the states you CAN reach. Fields a move requires must be sent in this same call, with 'resolution' and 'fields': a value set by an earlier call does not satisfy the condition. Answers with 'notified' (who this actually reaches) and 'unresolvedMentions' (what looked like a mention and reached nobody, each with a reason) — a wrong handle is stored as written and never refused, so that list is the only sign it did not land.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesIssue key, e.g. 'UK-1'.
typeNoNew issue type name, e.g. 'Task', 'Bug', 'Story', 'Epic'.
fieldsNoThe project's own columns to fill in with this update, by their NAMES: 'Segment=AI; Country=Poland', or a JSON object. Same shape as set_issue_fields — this exists here because a move a workflow conditions on a column has to set it in the same call.
labelsNoLabels to set, space or comma separated. Replaces the existing set.
statusNoStatus name to move the issue to, e.g. 'In Progress', 'Done'.
dueDateNoThe day this is due, as YYYY-MM-DD. A calendar day, not a timestamp. Pass an empty string to clear it.
summaryNoNew summary (title).
assigneeNoAssignee username or email. Pass an empty string to unassign. 'agent:<role>' (e.g. 'agent:product') hands the issue to that agent instead: you become the assignee and the agent works on your behalf — allowed only where a switched-on duty of that role in this project takes issues like this one (list_project_rules shows the duties).
priorityNoPriority name, e.g. 'High'.
parentKeyNoKey of the issue this one hangs off, e.g. 'PM-276' — moves it under that story or epic. To DETACH it instead, send detachParent: true; an empty string still works but is easy to lose on the way. Nothing is renamed and the key never changes: an issue keeps the key of the project it lives in. A sub-task must stay in its parent's project; anything else may cross projects.
resolutionNoResolution name to set, e.g. 'Fixed', 'Won't Do'. Some workflows require one on the move into a finished state; sending it here is how that condition is met.
descriptionNoNew description. Markdown, with $…$ / $$…$$ LaTeX formulas and [~username] mentions.
fixVersionsNoThe versions of the project this goes out in, by name, comma-separated: '2.4.0, 2.4.1'. REPLACES the set — to add one, send the ones it has (get_issue's 'fixVersions') with the new one. Pass an empty string to take it out of every version. A name the project does not have refuses the update and lists the ones it has.
detachParentNoTake this issue out from under its parent and leave it top-level. The reliable way to detach: unlike an empty parentKey it cannot arrive as the two characters "" or be dropped as «nothing was sent». Refused together with a parentKey, since the two would be asking for opposite things.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / fixVersions
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": null,
      +  "description": "The versions of the project this goes out in, by name, comma-separated: '2.4.0, 2.4.1'. REPLACES the set — to add one, send the ones it has (get_issue's 'fixVersions') with the new one. Pass an empty string to take it out of every version. A name the project does not have refuses the update and lists the ones it has.",
      +  "type": [
      +    "string",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that status transitions fire project rules, that workflow conditions can refuse a move and name the condition, that fields a move requires must be sent in the same call, and that the answer includes 'notified' and 'unresolvedMentions' with reasons. This is rich, actionable transparency.

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?

Despite its length, the description is densely informative and front-loads the core purpose and field list. Every sentence contributes behavioral detail that an agent needs, though a few clauses could be tightened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, transition behavior, rule interactions, refusal handling, and output signals ('notified', 'unresolvedMentions'). Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema: status fires rules and performs a transition, required fields for a move must be co-sent, and the 'notified'/'unresolvedMentions' output semantics for mentions. It goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 issue') and enumerates the fields it can modify, including the special case that status 'performs the transition'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like move_issue or set_issue_fields, but the listed scope makes its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explains important usage conditions (only passed fields change, required fields for a move must be in the same call) but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_issue or set_issue_fields. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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.

Resources