Skip to main content
Glama

update_issue

Update an issue: any of summary, description, type, assignee, priority, labels, dueDate, parentKey, 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.
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. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it is unusually transparent. It discloses that transitions fire project rules, rules can append checklists to the description, workflow conditions may refuse a move and name the condition, and required move fields must be included in the same call. It also explains response semantics for notified and unresolvedMentions, including that wrong handles are stored and never refused.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with its core purpose and contains no fluff, but it is a dense single paragraph of long clauses and parentheticals that is harder to scan than a structured version would be. Breaking out workflow, detach, and mention-response behavior into clearer segments would improve parseability without losing information.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description supplies the response shape (notified, unresolvedMentions) and the non-obvious workflow-rule behavior an agent cannot infer from the input schema. The parentKey/detachParent nuances are left to the schema, but the schema documents them thoroughly, so nothing essential for correct invocation is 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 schema carries the parameter-level detail. The description adds cross-parameter behavior beyond the schema: partial updates (only passed fields change) and the requirement that workflow-required fields be sent in the same call with resolution and fields. It does not redefine formats, but those are already documented in 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?

The description opens with 'Update an issue' and enumerates the updatable fields, including the special status-transition behavior, which clearly identifies the resource and operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like move_issue or set_issue_fields, but the field list and transition caveat make its role distinct enough.

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 concrete when-to-use context: only fields passed change, workflow moves can require fields in the same call, and status transitions fire project rules. It references set_issue_fields in the schema's fields parameter to explain why this call includes that parameter. It stops short of explicitly routing to move_issue or set_issue_fields, so usage guidance is contextual rather than a direct decision procedure.

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