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

atlassian-browser-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Remote Issue Link

jira_create_remote_issue_link

Adds web or Confluence links to a Jira issue so external resources appear in the issue's Links section for quick navigation.

Instructions

Create a remote issue link (web link or Confluence link) for a Jira issue.

This tool allows you to add web links and Confluence links to Jira issues. The links will appear in the issue's "Links" section and can be clicked to navigate to external resources.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to link to (e.g., 'https://example.com/page' or Confluence page URL)
titleYesThe title/name of the link (e.g., 'Documentation Page', 'Confluence Page')
summaryNo(Optional) Description of the link
icon_urlNo(Optional) URL to a 16x16 icon for the link
issue_keyYesThe key of the issue to add the link to (e.g., 'PROJ-123', 'ACV2-642')
relationshipNo(Optional) Relationship description (e.g., 'causes', 'relates to', 'documentation')

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 / issue_key / pattern
      Previous value: -"^[A-Z][A-Z0-9_]+-\\d+$"New value: +"^[A-Z][A-Z0-9_]+-\\d+(?:-\\d+)*$"
    • removedOutput schema / description
      Removed value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover mutation safety and open-world behavior, but the description adds useful context: the link appears in the issue's Links section and is clickable to navigate to external resources. It does not discuss duplicate behavior or permissions, but it adds meaningful post-creation behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, starting with the core action and then adding relevant behavior. The second sentence partially restates the first, but it earns its place by explaining where the link appears and how it behaves.

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?

With a fully described schema, output schema, and annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description is mostly complete for correct invocation. Its main gap is the lack of explicit comparison to the similar issue-link sibling, but the remote web/Confluence framing is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters, including issue_key, url, title, and optional fields. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: create a remote issue link for a Jira issue. It also clarifies that this covers web links and Confluence links, which implicitly distinguishes it from issue-to-issue linking siblings such as jira_create_issue_link, though it does not name 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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like jira_create_issue_link or jira_get_link_types. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues.

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