Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jira MCP Server

Jira MCP Server

by Eliya-56
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

unlink_issues

Remove a link between two Jira issues using its link ID. Retrieve the ID from the issueLinks field of get_task_details.

Instructions

Remove a link between two Jira issues by link ID. Get the link ID from get_task_details issueLinks field.

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": {
      "link_id": "<link_id>"
    },
    "name": "unlink_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
link_idYesIssue link ID (from get_task_details issueLinks[].id)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It names the removed object (the link) but does not state whether the removal is permanent, whether special permissions are required, what happens for invalid link IDs, or whether the issues themselves are otherwise affected. For a mutating tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the necessary ID source follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the operation, the resource, and the exact input source. The only gap is that it does not disclose whether unlinking is permanent or requires special permissions, which matters for a mutating tool with no annotations.

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?

The single parameter link_id is fully described in the schema, including its source (get_task_details issueLinks[].id), and the description repeats that source. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('link between two Jira issues'), and identifies the required identifier ('link ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling link_issues tool, which performs the opposite operation.

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 provides an explicit precondition: obtain the link ID from get_task_details issueLinks. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name link_issues as the creation alternative, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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