Skip to main content
Glama
CamdenClark

jira-mcp

by CamdenClark
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_issue retrieves a single issue by ID/key, while jql_search performs broader queries using JQL. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as they serve different use cases (specific lookup vs. flexible search).

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern with clear verb_noun structure: get_issue and jql_search. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations or mixed conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels severely under-scoped for a Jira integration. A typical Jira MCP would need more operations like create_issue, update_issue, or list_projects to cover basic workflows. The current set is too thin for meaningful agent interaction.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is significantly incomplete for Jira's domain. While get_issue and jql_search provide read/search capabilities, there are major gaps in CRUD operations (no create, update, or delete) and missing lifecycle management (e.g., transitions, comments). This will cause agent failures in common scenarios.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced' but doesn't explain what that entails—such as pagination support, performance characteristics, or authentication needs. For a search tool with potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic query execution.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'enhanced' means, what the output looks like (e.g., issue lists, pagination details), or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

    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 documents all parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of JQL queries or typical use cases for parameters like 'expand'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states the tool performs 'enhanced JQL search in Jira', which identifies the action (search) and domain (Jira). However, it's vague about what 'enhanced' means compared to basic JQL search, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_issue', which might retrieve individual issues rather than search multiple issues.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issue'. The description lacks context on scenarios where this search is preferred, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID/key is invalid), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

    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?

    The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and easy to parse, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what details are retrieved, how to handle optional parameters like 'fields' or 'expand', or what the response looks like. For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval by 'ID or key', which aligns with the 'issueIdOrKey' parameter but doesn't elaborate on usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('details about an issue'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'jql_search', which likely serves a different purpose (searching vs. retrieving by ID/key).

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jql_search'. It mentions retrieving by 'ID or key', which implies a specific use case, but doesn't clarify when to choose this over a search tool or address any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

jira-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

jira-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CamdenClark/jira-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server