jira-mcp-server

update_worklog

Update existing Jira worklog entries by providing the issue key and worklog ID to revise comments or logged time.

Instructions

Update an existing worklog entry

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>",
      "worklogId": "<worklogId>"
    },
    "name": "update_worklog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comment`	No
`issueKey`	Yes
`timeSpent`	No	e.g., '1h 30m'
`worklogId`	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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether the update is idempotent, how partial updates are handled, or whether specific permissions are required. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, succinct sentence with no filler. It is perfectly front-loaded and communicates the essential operation in the fewest possible words.

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 the lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and the presence of four parameters (two required), the description is far from complete. It does not mention required fields, error conditions, or any side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only timeSpent has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics, and while parameter names like issueKey and worklogId are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving format or behavior details unexplained.

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 worklog entry' uses a specific verb (update) and resource (worklog entry), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_worklog and delete_worklog. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_worklog or delete_worklog). There are no contextual cues, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer the use case solely from the name.

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