jira-mcp-server

update_issue

Update an existing Jira issue by providing its key and the field values to change, such as summary or priority.

Instructions

Update fields of an existing 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>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "update_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	Yes	Field values to update (e.g., { summary: 'New Title', priority: { name: 'High' } })
`issueKey`	Yes	The issue key (e.g., PROJ-123)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it offers only the bare fact of updating fields. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, permission requirements, or side effects like notifications or validations, which are important 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 that is immediately clear and front-loaded, with no filler words. It earns high marks for conciseness, though this comes at the cost of contextual completeness.

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 and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It omits behavioral details like merge semantics or permission requirements and does not reference the schema's nested object structure, leaving the agent with a minimal understanding of the tool's effects.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both issueKey and fields, including an example for fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already encodes, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action (update) and the resource (fields of an existing Jira issue), which is specific enough to distinguish from sibling update tools like update_comment or update_worklog. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or scope, so it lacks the differentiation seen in stronger examples.

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 other issue-related operations such as create_issue, transition_issue, or bulk_update. It does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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