Skip to main content
Glama

Transition issue

jira_transition_issue

Advance a Jira issue through its workflow by providing a transition name or ID; it validates against current status and handles required fields and comments.

Instructions

Move one issue through its workflow. transition takes the transition's NAME or id and is resolved against the transitions available from the issue's CURRENT status at call time; an unresolvable value comes back as a validation error listing the valid ones, and nothing is sent. Status cannot be set through jira_update_issue. Screens that demand a resolution take it in fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNoSet true to EXECUTE this write. Omit (or false) to get a plan of the request that would be sent. Executing also requires the server to run with JIRA_WRITE_MODE=apply.
issueYesIssue key (PROJ-123) or numeric issue id.
fieldsNoFields the transition screen demands, e.g. { "resolution": { "name": "Done" } }. jira_get_transitions reports which ones have a screen.
formatNoHow to interpret a string rich-text input: "text" (default — blank lines split paragraphs, single newlines are hard breaks) or "markdown" (the documented subset: headings, lists, code fences, bold/italic/code, links). Refused alongside a raw ADF document.
commentNoComment added as part of the transition; text or ADF.
plan_idNoThe single-use id returned by the preceding plan-mode call. Required together with apply: true; a mismatch means the arguments changed since the plan, and the write is refused rather than executed.
profileNoNamed credential profile for this call. Omit to use the active profile. Rejected when the server locks the profile (JIRA_LOCK_PROFILE).
transitionYesTransition NAME (Start Progress) or id (31). Resolved against the transitions available from this issue's current status.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, it discloses a safe no-op behavior: an unresolvable transition yields a validation error listing valid options and 'nothing is sent.' It also warns about required screen fields by noting resolutions are supplied via 'fields,' which is behavioral guidance not present in 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?

Four dense sentences with no filler; the purpose statement is front-loaded and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct decision-relevant fact. It is compact despite covering validation, routing, and screen behavior.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a write operation with no output schema, the description covers the main correctness risks: choosing a transition valid at the current status, avoiding jira_update_issue for status, and supplying resolution through fields. The plan/execute mechanics are already fully documented in the input schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All eight parameters already have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics to 'transition' (NAME or id, resolved against current status, with a listing behavior on failure) and to 'fields' (transition-screen demands such as resolution), lifting it above baseline.

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 opening sentence 'Move one issue through its workflow' names a specific verb and resource, and the description further distinguishes it from the sibling jira_update_issue by stating that status cannot be set there. This makes the tool's role clear even within a large sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly routes around the alternative: 'Status cannot be set through jira_update_issue' tells the agent that workflow status changes belong here. It also clarifies context-sensitive availability by saying transitions are resolved against the issue's current status at call time, which frames when jira_get_transitions would be the companion call.

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/IvanBBaev/jira-mcp'

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