jira_get_issue_proforma_formsRetrieve all ProForma forms linked to a Jira issue and return their UUID form IDs via the Jira Forms REST API.
Get all ProForma forms associated with a Jira issue.
Uses the new Jira Forms REST API. Form IDs are returned as UUIDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_key | Yes | Jira issue key (e.g., 'PROJ-123') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that — the newer Forms REST API and that form IDs come back as UUIDs (helpful for chaining into detail/update calls) — but says nothing about behavior when an issue has no forms or about result ordering.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The API/UUID note is compact and follows the core statement rather than burying it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented. The description is sufficient to call the tool correctly; only the natural follow-up (feed the returned UUIDs to jira_get_proforma_form_details) is left unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the example format ('PROJ-123') already given in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get all ProForma forms associated with a Jira issue.' The plural 'all forms' implicitly separates it from jira_get_proforma_form_details, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the resource ('forms associated with an issue'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer jira_get_proforma_form_details, and no note about prerequisites like Forms being enabled on the project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.