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

atlassian-browser-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get Service Desk For Project

jira_get_service_desk_for_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the Jira Service Desk linked to a given project key on Jira Server/Data Center, helping identify the correct service desk for a project.

Instructions

Get the Jira Service Desk associated with a project key.

Server/Data Center only. Not available on Jira Cloud.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_keyYesJira project key (e.g., 'SUP')

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedOutput schema / description
      Removed value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description needs less safety detail. It adds important platform availability context by noting the tool is unavailable on Jira Cloud, which is not captured in 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short sentences with no wasted text. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the deployment restriction.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main missing detail is what happens when the project is not a service desk project, but the output schema covers return structure.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%, with the project_key pattern and example already documented in the schema. The description mentions the project key but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 clear verb+resource: get the Jira Service Desk associated with a project key. It is specific enough to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling service-desk tools such as queues or request types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states a deployment constraint: Server/Data Center only, not Jira Cloud. That is useful when-to-use context, but it does not mention alternatives or when to prefer sibling service-desk tools.

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