Retrieve a Jira issue by its ID or key, with optional fields, properties, and expansions to control the returned work item data.
Get a Jira work item by ID or key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | e.g. renderedFields, names, schema, changelog | |
| fields | No | Limit the response to these field IDs/names | |
| properties | No | ||
| issueIdOrKey | Yes | Issue ID or key, e.g. PROJ-123 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on permissions/scopes, error behavior for missing keys, or response size/default field set. With no added behavioral context against complete annotations, this stays low.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence naming verb, resource, and identifier with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only getter whose annotations carry the safety profile, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema and no indication of what is returned (full issue by default, fields/expand narrowing, changelog option), an agent cannot anticipate the response shape or default payload.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%; the schema documents issueIdOrKey ('PROJ-123'), expand (example values), and fields, while properties is undocumented. The description only restates 'by ID or key', which the schema already says, so it adds no meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented properties parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Jira work item) with the identifying input (ID or key), which implicitly separates it from searchJiraIssuesUsingJql, createJiraIssue, and editJiraIssue. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify how it differs from the other read-family tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives: no mention that it is the direct-lookup path when you already hold a key, and no pointer to searchJiraIssuesUsingJql when you do not. Usage is only inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.