Skip to main content
Glama
ParasSolanki

Jira MCP Server

by ParasSolanki

list_boards

Retrieve boards from a Jira project to manage workflows and track progress. Filter by board type, name, or paginate results for efficient project oversight.

Instructions

List boards from a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectKeyOrIdYesThe key or ID of the project
nameNoThe name of the boards to return, Must be less than 255 characters.
maxResultsNoThe maximum number of results to return, (max: 100)
startAtNoThe starting index of the returned boards
typeNoThe type of boards to return

Implementation Reference

  • The main execution function for the 'list_boards' tool. It constructs the Jira REST API URL for boards endpoint with provided parameters and fetches the data using the $jiraJson helper.
    export async function listBoards(input: ListBoardsInput) {
      const url = new URL(`/rest/agile/1.0/board`, env.JIRA_BASE_URL);
    
      url.searchParams.set("projectKeyOrId", input.projectKeyOrId);
    
      if (input.name) url.searchParams.set("name", input.name);
    
      if (input.type) url.searchParams.set("type", input.type);
    
      if (input.startAt) url.searchParams.set("startAt", input.startAt.toString());
    
      if (input.maxResults)
        url.searchParams.set("maxResults", input.maxResults.toString());
    
      const json = await $jiraJson(url.toString());
    
      if (json.isErr()) return err(json.error);
    
      return ok(json.value);
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the list_boards tool, including project key, optional filters like name, maxResults, startAt, and type.
    export const listBoardsInputSchema = z.object({
      projectKeyOrId: z.string().describe("The key or ID of the project"),
      name: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .describe(
          "The name of the boards to return, Must be less than 255 characters.",
        ),
      maxResults: z
        .number()
        .optional()
        .describe("The maximum number of results to return, (max: 100)"),
      startAt: z
        .number()
        .optional()
        .describe("The starting index of the returned boards"),
      type: z
        .enum(["scrum", "kanban"])
        .optional()
        .describe("The type of boards to return"),
    });
  • Tool object registration defining the name, description, and input schema for the list_boards tool.
    export const LIST_BOARDS_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: "list_boards",
      description: "List boards from a project",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(listBoardsInputSchema) as Tool["inputSchema"],
    };
  • src/app.ts:39-48 (registration)
    Central tools array where LIST_BOARDS_TOOL is registered among other tools, exposed via the MCP listTools handler.
    export const tools = [
      // list
      LIST_PROJECTS_TOOL,
      LIST_BOARDS_TOOL,
      LIST_SPRINTS_FROM_BOARD_TOOL,
      LIST_ISSUES_FROM_SPRINT_TOOL,
    
      // create
      CREATE_ISSUE_TOOL,
    ] satisfies Tool[];
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't describe what 'list' entails—whether it returns all boards, supports pagination (implied by 'maxResults' and 'startAt' in schema but not explained), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List boards from a project'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or return format, which are critical for a list operation. The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output schema.

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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'projectKeyOrId' is obtained or clarify filtering logic). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('boards from a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' by specifying boards rather than projects, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_issues_from_sprint' or 'list_sprints_from_board' which operate on different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_issues_from_sprint'. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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/ParasSolanki/jira-mcp-server'

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