jira-mcp-server

add_attachment

Attach a local file to a Jira issue by providing the issue key and the full file path.

Instructions

Add a local file as an attachment to a Jira issue

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": {
      "issueKey": "<issueKey>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "add_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filePath`	Yes	Full local path to the file
`issueKey`	Yes	Issue key (e.g., PROJ-123)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action without revealing side effects. It does not mention whether attachments are overwritten, whether the file must exist locally, size limits, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of ten words, front-loading the verb and object with zero wasted language. It is appropriately concise for the simple operation being described.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. However, it lacks any explicit notes on behavioral constraints (e.g., file size limits, idempotency) that could affect usage, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions (issueKey format and filePath as 'Full local path'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('local file'), and target ('Jira issue'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools such as delete_attachment or add_comment, as it uniquely describes attaching a file.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or that delete_attachment would be the inverse operation. The description only states the action itself, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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