jira_get_issue_watchersRetrieve the list of watchers for a Jira issue by providing its issue key, so you can identify who is monitoring the ticket and receiving updates.
Get the list of watchers for a Jira issue.
| 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: +falseInput schema / properties / issue_key / patternPrevious value: -"^[A-Z][A-Z0-9_]+-\\d+$"New value: +"^[A-Z][A-Z0-9_]+-\\d+(?:-\\d+)*$"Output 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on permissions needed to view watchers, pagination, or empty-list behavior.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse rather than too long.
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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool sitting among add/remove watcher siblings, the description leaves the agent without enough to confidently choose it over alternatives.
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, issue_key, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with a pattern and example. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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 the list of watchers for a Jira issue.' An agent can tell what it returns, but the description does nothing to distinguish it from the closely related siblings jira_add_watcher and jira_remove_watcher.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus jira_add_watcher, jira_remove_watcher, or jira_get_issue. The read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'Get'; there are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.