Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
atlassian-browser-mcp

atlassian-browser-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Batch Create Issues

jira_batch_create_issues

Create multiple Jira issues in a batch.

Instructions

Create multiple Jira issues in a batch.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issuesYesJSON array of issue objects. Each object should contain: - project_key (required): The project key (e.g., 'PROJ') - summary (required): Issue summary/title - issue_type (required): Type of issue (e.g., 'Task', 'Bug') - description (optional): Issue description in Markdown format - assignee (optional): Assignee username or email - components (optional): Array of component names Example: [ {"project_key": "PROJ", "summary": "Issue 1", "issue_type": "Task"}, {"project_key": "PROJ", "summary": "Issue 2", "issue_type": "Bug", "components": ["Frontend"]} ]
validate_onlyNoIf true, only validates the issues without creating them

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedOutput schema / description
      Removed value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower; but the description adds nothing beyond the name. For a batch write it says nothing about atomicity, partial-failure behavior, or validation, which is the key risk an agent needs to know.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but the terseness is under-specification rather than efficient concision given the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description only needs to cover behavior. It falls short on batch semantics (ordering, partial failure, limits on batch size), which an agent calling a non-idempotent batch mutation would benefit from.

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% and the 'issues' parameter has a full field list and example, so the description need not explain parameters. Baseline 3 applies since the description itself contributes nothing about parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create multiple Jira issues') and the batch scope is clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from jira_create_issue by saying 'multiple ... in a batch', but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 on when to use this over jira_create_issue (loop vs batch), no mention of the validate_only dry-run as a recommended first step, and no prerequisites such as required project permissions.

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