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

atlassian-browser-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Move Issue to Project

jira_move_issue
Destructive

Move a Jira issue to another Jira Cloud project; the issue keeps its type, may get a new key, and the tool polls until the async move completes.

Instructions

Move a Jira issue to a different project (Jira Cloud only).

Uses Jira Cloud's bulk move API to perform a cross-project move. The issue keeps its current issue type and may be assigned a new key in the target project (e.g., OLDPROJ-123 becomes NEWPROJ-456).

The move is processed asynchronously on Jira's side; this tool polls until confirmed or times out after 30 seconds.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_keyYesJira issue key to move (e.g., 'PROJ-123')
target_project_keyYesKey of the target project (e.g., 'OTHERPROJ'). The issue will keep its current issue type and may receive a new key in the target project.

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. Addedv1.2.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it uses the bulk move API, the issue may receive a new key in the target project, and the move is asynchronous with a 30-second polling timeout. What it omits is permission/authorization requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and platform constraint, then layered with key-change and async details. There is minor redundancy with the schema's target_project_key description, which repeats the issue-type/key-change point, but nothing is wasted at the paragraph level.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the important non-obvious behaviors (async processing, 30s timeout, key reassignment). The one meaningful gap is that permissions/eligibility for cross-project moves are unstated.

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 both parameters are already documented with patterns and examples. The description adds the behavioral consequence that issue type is preserved and the key may change, but this largely duplicates the target_project_key schema text. 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Move a Jira issue to a different project') plus a platform scope constraint (Jira Cloud only). It implicitly separates itself from jira_move_issues_to_backlog by targeting a project rather than a backlog, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is not explicit.

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?

The 'Jira Cloud only' note is real usage guidance and the cross-project framing implies when to reach for this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and the closest alternative (jira_move_issues_to_backlog) is never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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