jira-mcp-server

update_version

Update a Jira project version or release, changing its name, description, release date, or archived/released status.

Instructions

Update a project version/release

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": {
      "versionId": "<versionId>"
    },
    "name": "update_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`archived`	No
`released`	No
`versionId`	Yes
`description`	No
`releaseDate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or how the archived/released flags affect behavior. 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.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It omits essential information about parameters and behavior, making it more an under-specification than a model of conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of key fields like archived, released, releaseDate, or what the tool returns. Minimal viable context is entirely absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions no parameters at all. The property names in the schema offer minimal hints, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the raw schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'a project version/release', clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling update tools like update_issue or update_sprint, and the slash in 'version/release' introduces slight ambiguity.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., existing versionId), and no exclusions. Sibling tools like create_version and delete_versions exist, but the description offers no criteria for choosing update_version.

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