Skip to main content
Glama

Update Issue

jira_update_issue
Destructive

Modify existing Jira issues by updating status, fields, epic links, components, and attachments through the Atlassian MCP server.

Instructions

Update an existing Jira issue including changing status, adding Epic links, updating fields, etc.

Args: ctx: The FastMCP context. issue_key: Jira issue key. fields: JSON string of fields to update. Text fields like 'description' should use Markdown format. additional_fields: Optional JSON string of additional fields. components: Comma-separated list of component names. attachments: Optional JSON array string or comma-separated list of file paths.

Returns: JSON string representing the updated issue object and attachment results.

Raises: ValueError: If in read-only mode or Jira client unavailable, or invalid input.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_keyYesJira issue key (e.g., 'PROJ-123', 'ACV2-642')
fieldsYesJSON string of fields to update. For 'assignee', provide a string identifier (email, name, or accountId). For 'description', provide text in Markdown format. Example: '{"assignee": "user@example.com", "summary": "New Summary", "description": "## Updated\nMarkdown text"}'
additional_fieldsNo(Optional) JSON string of additional fields to update. Use this for custom fields or more complex updates. Link to epic: {"epicKey": "EPIC-123"} or {"epic_link": "EPIC-123"}.
componentsNo(Optional) Comma-separated list of component names (e.g., 'Frontend,API')
attachmentsNo(Optional) JSON string array or comma-separated list of file paths to attach to the issue. Example: '/path/to/file1.txt,/path/to/file2.txt' or ['/path/to/file1.txt','/path/to/file2.txt']

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool can update various aspects (status, Epic links, fields), mentions format requirements (Markdown for description), and discloses error conditions in the 'Raises' section (read-only mode, client availability, invalid input). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects on related issues.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (description, Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the description could be more concise by relying more on the schema for parameter details. Most sentences earn their place by providing useful context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, destructive operation) and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint) and output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter context, return values, and error conditions. However, it could better explain behavioral nuances like how updates interact with existing data or provide more usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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%, with detailed parameter documentation in the schema itself. The description's 'Args' section mostly repeats schema information, though it adds minor context about Markdown format for text fields. Since the schema already provides comprehensive parameter semantics, the description adds minimal additional value, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Update an existing Jira issue') and resource ('Jira issue'), with examples of what can be updated ('changing status, adding Epic links, updating fields, etc.'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jira_create_issue' (create vs update) and 'jira_transition_issue' (general update vs specific status transition).

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'existing Jira issue' and listing update capabilities, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_transition_issue' for status changes only or 'jira_add_comment' for adding comments. The 'Raises' section provides some exclusion guidance (read-only mode, client unavailable).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GeiserX/atlassian-browser-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server