jira-mcp-server

assign_issue

Assign a Jira issue to a user by specifying the issue key and the user's Atlassian account ID.

Instructions

Assign a Jira issue to a user

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>",
      "accountId": "<accountId>"
    },
    "name": "assign_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issueKey`	Yes	Issue key (e.g., PROJ-123)
`accountId`	Yes	The Atlassian account ID of the user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Assign a Jira issue to a user' without disclosing whether it overwrites an existing assignee, requires specific permissions, or has other side effects. The description does not go beyond the basic operation implied by the name.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

This simple mutation tool relies on the description for context, but the description is minimal. With no annotations or output schema, the agent is left without information about permissions, effects on existing assignments, or how this compares to related tools like update_issue. The schema covers parameters but not the broader operational context.

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 schema covers both parameters (issueKey and accountId) with clear descriptions and examples (e.g., PROJ-123), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 specific action 'Assign a Jira issue to a user', which is a distinct verb+resource+target. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like update_issue or transition_issue, which could also modify an issue but for different purposes.

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. It does not mention whether this should be used instead of update_issue, nor does it note prerequisites or when the operation is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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