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

atlassian-browser-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Issue

jira_create_issue

Create a new Jira issue with a required project key, summary, and issue type, plus optional assignee, components, description, Epic link, or parent for subtasks.

Instructions

Create a new Jira issue with optional Epic link or parent for subtasks.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryYesSummary/title of the issue
assigneeNo(Optional) Assignee's user identifier (string): Email, display name, or account ID (e.g., 'user@example.com', 'John Doe', 'accountid:...')
componentsNo(Optional) Comma-separated list of component names to assign (e.g., 'Frontend,API')
issue_typeYesIssue type (e.g. 'Task', 'Bug', 'Story', 'Epic', 'Subtask'). The available types depend on your project configuration. For subtasks, use 'Subtask' (not 'Sub-task') and include parent in additional_fields.
descriptionNoIssue description in Markdown format. On Jira Cloud, use '{expand:Title}...{expand}' for a collapsible section.
project_keyYesThe JIRA project key (e.g. 'PROJ', 'DEV', 'ACV2'). This is the prefix of issue keys in your project. Never assume what it might be, always ask the user.
additional_fieldsNo(Optional) JSON string of additional fields to set. Examples: - Set priority: {"priority": {"name": "High"}} - Add labels: {"labels": ["frontend", "urgent"]} - Link to parent (for any issue type): {"parent": "PROJ-123"} - Link to epic: {"epicKey": "EPIC-123"} or {"epic_link": "EPIC-123"} - Set Fix Version/s: {"fixVersions": [{"id": "10020"}]} - Custom fields: {"customfield_10010": "value"}

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.4.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Previous value: -"Issue description in Markdown format"New value: +"Issue description in Markdown format. On Jira Cloud, use '{expand:Title}...{expand}' for a collapsible section."
    • removedOutput schema / description
      Removed value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not warn that idempotentHint=false means repeated calls create duplicates, does not mention permission/project-configuration requirements, and its only substantive claim (Epic link/parent for subtasks) is already spelled out in the issue_type and additional_fields schema descriptions.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for a 7-parameter create tool that has non-obvious failure modes.

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 the input schema is fully documented, so the core contract is covered. However, for a non-idempotent open-world write tool the description is silent on project-specific required fields (note the sibling jira_get_create_fields exists for exactly this), duplicate-creation risk, and where the issue lands — gaps the description should close.

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%, with every parameter documented including examples for additional_fields and the project_key pattern and 'always ask the user' caveat. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a new Jira issue') plus a scope qualifier about Epic link/parent for subtasks. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the obvious sibling alternatives like jira_batch_create_issues, jira_create_customer_request, or jira_link_to_epic, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the parent/Epic mention; there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead for bulk/portal requests'. Given ~70 sibling tools including several other creation paths, the absence of routing guidance leaves real ambiguity.

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