Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jira MCP Server

Jira MCP Server

by Eliya-56
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_tasks

Retrieve Jira issues using a text search or raw JQL to locate matching tasks.

Instructions

Search Jira issues by text query or raw JQL. Provide either 'query' (text search) or 'jql' (raw JQL), not both.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jqlNoRaw JQL query (e.g. 'project = PROJ AND status = "In Progress"')
queryNoText to search for in issues (uses text ~ "...")
max_resultsNoMaximum number of results (1-50, default 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates the mutual-exclusivity constraint between 'query' and 'jql', which is not enforced by the schema, and 'Search' implies a read-only operation. It could add more about result shape or pagination behavior, but the core behavioral constraints are present.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core purpose and the key usage constraint. Every part contributes useful information with no wasted words.

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?

For a search tool with well-documented parameters, this is nearly complete: it explains the two search modes and the either/or constraint. It does not state what happens if neither 'query' nor 'jql' is supplied, but since the schema marks them optional, that edge case is a minor gap.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds value by stating that 'query' and 'jql' are mutually exclusive and by explaining the semantic split between text search and raw JQL — useful context beyond the raw 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?

Description names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Jira issues'), and the two supported search modes ('text query' and 'raw JQL'). This clearly distinguishes search_tasks from sibling tools like get_my_tasks or get_task_details.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives clear parameter-level usage guidance: provide either 'query' or 'jql', not both. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over get_my_tasks or get_task_details, so usage vs alternatives is only implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools