jira-mcp-server

get_project_versions

Lists all versions (releases) for a Jira project. Provide the project key to get a complete list of release versions.

Instructions

List all versions (releases) for a project

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": {
      "projectKey": "<projectKey>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectKey`	Yes	Project key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The phrase 'List all versions' indicates a non-mutating operation that returns all releases, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, error behavior, or whether archived/unreleased versions are included. This is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, making it highly concise and easily scannable.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, but there is no output schema. The description states the core purpose but omits details about the response structure, ordering, or default behavior. It is minimally viable but not as complete as it could be for an agent invoking the tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a description saying 'Project key'. The description repeats the concept by saying 'for a project' but adds no extra meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage details.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'versions (releases)' for a project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_version, update_version, and delete_versions, which are mutating operations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies a read-only retrieval use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is clear from the verb 'List' that it is for fetching versions, but no guidance is provided about when not to use it or how it compares to sibling version-related tools.

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