Skip to main content
Glama

Create Customer Request

jira_create_customer_request
Destructive

Create a Jira Service Management customer request with a service desk ID, request type ID, and field values, optionally adding attachments or participants.

Instructions

Create a Jira Service Management customer request.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attachmentsNo(Optional) JSON array string of files to attach to the created request. Each object must contain 'filename', 'mime_type', and base64-encoded 'base64' content. Example: [{"filename": "log.txt", "mime_type": "text/plain", "base64": "aGVsbG8="}]
request_type_idYesRequest type ID (e.g., '23')
service_desk_idYesService desk ID (e.g., '4')
strict_on_behalfNoIf true, fail immediately when raiseOnBehalfOf cannot be applied. If false, retry without raiseOnBehalfOf and return a fallback warning.
raise_on_behalf_ofNo(Optional) Jira user identifier for raiseOnBehalfOf. For Server/DC this is typically username or key; for Cloud use the identifier expected by your JSM instance.
request_field_valuesYesJSON string of request field values keyed by field ID. Examples: - Summary and description: {"summary": "Access issue", "description": "Cannot log in"} - Multi-value field: {"customfield_10001": ["alice", "bob"]}
request_participantsNo(Optional) JSON array string or comma-separated list of request participants. Examples: ["user1","user2"] or "user1,user2"

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond them: no note that creating a request notifies the customer/reporter, no permission requirements, no mention of the raise_on_behalf_of fallback semantics that the schema hints at, and no statement about what a successful creation returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutating JSM tool with openWorld and destructive hints, the description omits the workflow context an agent needs: where the service desk and request type IDs come from, what side effects (customer notifications, portal visibility) to expect, and how it relates to jira_create_issue. The existing output schema and rich parameter descriptions partially compensate, but the description itself is thin.

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%, including detailed examples for the JSON-string parameters and the strict_on_behalf fallback behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate rather than higher.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('Jira Service Management customer request'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling jira_create_issue that makes ordinary Jira issues. It stops short of naming or routing against that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of jira_create_issue, nor any mention of the prerequisite lookup flow (jira_get_service_desk_for_project / jira_get_request_types) needed to obtain service_desk_id and request_type_id. An agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.

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