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

atlassian-browser-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Transition Issue

jira_transition_issue
Destructive

Move a Jira issue to a new workflow status by transition ID, optionally updating fields or adding a comment during the change.

Instructions

Transition a Jira issue to a new status.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNo(Optional) JSON string of fields to update during the transition. Some transitions require specific fields to be set (e.g., resolution). Example: '{"resolution": {"name": "Fixed"}}'
commentNo(Optional) Comment to add during the transition in Markdown format. This will be visible in the issue history. Rejected for projects listed in JIRA_INTERNAL_ONLY_PROJECTS (a transition comment may be customer-visible on JSM and cannot be forced internal): transition without a comment, then post an internal note with jira_add_comment(public=false).
issue_keyYesJira issue key (e.g., 'PROJ-123', 'ACV2-642')
transition_idYesID of the transition to perform. Use the jira_get_transitions tool first to get the available transition IDs for the issue. Example values: '11', '21', '31'

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.4.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / comment / description
      Previous value: -"(Optional) Comment to add during the transition in Markdown format. This will be visible in the issue history."New value: +"(Optional) Comment to add during the transition in Markdown format. This will be visible in the issue history. Rejected for projects listed in JIRA_INTERNAL_ONLY_PROJECTS (a transition comment may be customer-visible on JSM and cannot be forced internal): transition without a comment, then post an internal note with jira_add_comment(public=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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds nothing to that profile. It does not mention that some transitions require specific fields (e.g., resolution), nor that pre-populated fields can be lost — the one behavioral note that matters for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is so terse that it largely restates the title and leaves the useful constraints to the schema, so the brevity buys little.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema, full annotation set, and 100%-covered parameter schema carry most of the load, so the description need not explain return values or safety. However, for a destructive, open-world mutation with no idempotency, the absence of any guidance on prerequisites or required transition fields leaves a real gap.

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 baseline is 3; the description itself contributes no parameter meaning beyond the tool name. The schema already documents issue_key format, transition_id sourcing, fields JSON, and the JSM comment restriction more richly than the description does.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Transition a Jira issue') and names the outcome ('to a new status'), so the action is unambiguous. It stops short of distinguishing this tool from nearby siblings such as jira_update_issue or jira_move_issue, relying on the reader to infer scope.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not point at the required prerequisite lookup (jira_get_transitions), which appears only inside the schema. An agent must read the parameter schema to learn the correct invocation sequence.

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