jira-mcp-server

update_comment

Replace the text of an existing comment on a Jira issue by specifying the issue key, comment ID, and new comment content.

Instructions

Update an existing comment on an 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>",
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comment`	Yes	The new comment text
`issueKey`	Yes
`commentId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 core action ('update') but does not mention whether the comment is fully replaced, whether permissions are required, or what happens if the comment does not exist. This is minimal 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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward update action, front-loading the verb and resource clearly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not mention return values, error behavior, or prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (comment has a description, issueKey and commentId do not). The description adds no parameter details, failing to compensate for the low coverage. It does not explain that issueKey identifies the issue or that commentId identifies the specific comment.

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 'Update an existing comment on an issue' clearly states a specific verb (update) and resource (comment), and the qualifier 'existing' distinguishes it from adding or deleting comments. It aligns with the tool name and is unambiguous.

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 the tool is used to modify an existing comment, but it does not explicitly contrast with add_comment or delete_comment. There is no direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the verb 'update' gives a reasonable inference.

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