get_unified_issueRetrieve a single issue by its ID from the connected account. Returns the full issue record. Requires id (obtained from list_unified_issues). Use when you already have the ID; to search or list issues, use list_unified_issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the issue to get |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / minLengthAdded value: +1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "Issue": {
+ "properties": {
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "(ISO-8601 / YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ format)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "customer_note": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "importance": {
+ "description": "1-5, 1 is lowest",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "resolution_time": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "size": {
+ "description": "1-5, 1 is lowest",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "One of: COMPLETED, NEW, ROADMAP, IN_PROGRESS, ON_HOLD, VALIDATING, REJECTED",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ticket_ref": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/Issue_type"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "updated_at": {
+ "description": "(ISO-8601 / YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ format)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "workspace_id": {
+ "description": "(reference to KmsSpace)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "Issue_type": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/Issue",
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / fieldsRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Comma-separated list of fields to include in the response",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns the 'full issue record' and discloses where the required ID originates (list_unified_issues). It stops short of discussing auth or rate-limit behavior, but is solid for a read-only fetch.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the ID requirement, ending with the routing constraint. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies everything else an agent needs: what it fetches, the required ID, its source, and the sibling alternative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a single well-described 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the provenance of the ID (obtained from list_unified_issues), which is marginally helpful beyond the schema but does not add format or syntax detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a single issue) scoped by ID from the connected account. It clearly distinguishes itself from list_unified_issues by naming it as the alternative for search/listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use it ('when you already have the ID') and when to use the alternative ('to search or list issues, use list_unified_issues'). Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.