lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

jira_list_transitions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve available Jira workflow transitions for a given issue, showing valid next statuses to guide status updates.

Instructions

Jira connector operation list_transitions (platform tool jira.list_transitions).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	Yes
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / effect

Added value: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotations indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool, and the effect field is constrained to 'read'. Yet the description says approval_ref is for 'when resuming a write,' which contradicts the read-only annotation and introduces confusion about whether this can be involved in write operations.

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 compact and uses a clean argument list. It is shorter than it could be, with the only minor waste being the redundant 'platform tool' restatement and a security one-liner that mostly repeats the route constraint.

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?

Even though output schema and annotations exist, the core invocation semantics are missing: it never mentions that a Jira issue identifier is needed or what the transitions list is applied to. A read tool like this still needs enough input context, and the generic `arguments` description does not allow correct invocation.

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?

For 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description gives a brief meaning for each wrapper field (project_id, refs, effect, idempotency_key, etc.). However, the most important parameter, `arguments`, is only described as a generic JSON string and no Jira-specific expected keys or example are provided, so an agent still cannot know how to actually call list_transitions.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description only restates the name as "Jira connector operation `list_transitions`" and adds a routing constraint; it never says what the operation returns or that it lists available workflow transitions for a Jira issue. This does not distinguish it from siblings like jira_transition_issue or jira_list_issue_types beyond the name itself.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., issue ID/key), and no explanation of how the returned transitions should inform a subsequent transition. The only operational sentence concerns governed routing, not usage.

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

Deploy Server