opencode-jira-mcp

manage_comments

Read or add comments on a Jira issue. List comments with pagination or create new ones using markdown and @mentions.

Instructions

Manage comments on a Jira issue. Use action "list" to read all comments, or action "add" to create a new comment. Comments support Jira markdown syntax including @mentions. When adding, the body field is required. The list action supports pagination.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "issueKey": "<issueKey>"
    },
    "name": "manage_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Comment text. Supports Jira markdown. REQUIRED when action is "add".
`action`	Yes	Action to perform: "list" to read comments or "add" to create a new comment.
`startAt`	No	Pagination offset (for "list" action).
`issueKey`	Yes	Issue key (e.g., "PROJ-123"). REQUIRED.
`maxResults`	No	Max comments to return (for "list" action).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions Jira markdown support and pagination, but lacks details on permissions, failure modes, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two efficient sentences covering purpose, actions, markdown, and key constraints. No unnecessary words, well-front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers key usage aspects for a simple tool. It could mention return format (e.g., list returns array of comments), but the pagination hints are helpful. Reasonably complete for its complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the body requirement for 'add' and pagination for 'list', but adds limited novel information beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it manages comments on Jira issues with two distinct actions ('list' and 'add'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_issues or create_issue, which focus on different resources.

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?

It specifies when to use 'list' (reading comments) vs 'add' (creating), and notes body required for add. However, it does not explicitly exclude editing/deleting, which are not supported.

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

Deploy Server