opencode-jira-mcp

assign_user

Assign a user to a Jira issue with issue key and account ID; set account ID to null or 'unassigned' to remove the current assignee.

Instructions

Assign a user to an issue or unassign the current user. Provide the issue key and the account ID of the user to assign. To unassign, use accountId: null or accountId: "unassigned". The assignee must have access to the issue's 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": {
      "issueKey": "<issueKey>",
      "accountId": "<accountId>"
    },
    "name": "assign_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issueKey`	Yes	Issue key (e.g., "PROJ-123"). REQUIRED.
`accountId`	Yes	Atlassian Account ID of the user to assign. Use null or "unassigned" to unassign. REQUIRED.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the mutation (assign/unassign), the unassignment method, and an access constraint. It omits potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple operation this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage details, and a constraint. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description could have mentioned return values or success/failure indicators. However, the core action and key constraints are well-covered. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the unassignment syntax ('use accountId: null or accountId: "unassigned"') and the access requirement ('assignee must have access'), which are not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Assign a user to an issue or unassign the current user.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings (e.g., update_issue, search_issues) by focusing specifically on assignment actions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides how-to details (provide issueKey and accountId, use null or "unassigned" to unassign) and a prerequisite (assignee must have project access). It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the specialized purpose makes usage obvious.

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

Deploy Server