mcp-atlassian

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jira_clone_issue

Clone a Jira issue by copying its fields into a new issue and linking it to the source, skipping fields unavailable on the target project's create screen.

Instructions

Clone an existing Jira issue by copying its fields into a new issue.

Jira does not provide a single "clone issue" REST endpoint on Data Center, Server, or Cloud. This tool reproduces the Jira UI's built-in Clone action: it fetches the source issue's fields, creates a new issue with those fields copied over (summary, description, issue type, priority, labels, components, fix/affects versions, assignee, due date, security level, environment, and populated custom fields), and links the new issue back to the source issue with a "Cloners" issue link.

Each standard and custom field is pre-verified against the target project's create screen metadata before being copied, so fields that are not available for that project/issue type are excluded individually instead of failing the whole clone. Any excluded fields are listed under "excluded_fields" in the response.

Args: ctx: The FastMCP context. issue_key: The key of the issue to clone. project_key: Optional target project key. summary: Optional summary override for the clone. include_custom_fields: Whether to copy populated custom fields. link_to_original: Whether to create a "Cloners" link back to the source issue. include_links: Whether to re-create the source issue's other issue links. additional_fields: Optional dictionary of fields to override or add.

Returns: JSON string representing the newly created clone issue. Includes an "excluded_fields" list when fields were skipped because they are not on the target create screen.

Raises: ValueError: If in read-only mode, Jira client unavailable, or the source issue/target project is invalid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`summary`	No	(Optional) Summary for the cloned issue. Defaults to 'CLONE - <source summary>', matching Jira's built-in Clone action.
`issue_key`	Yes	The key of the issue to clone (e.g., 'PROJ-123')
`project_key`	No	(Optional) Target project key for the clone (e.g., 'PROJ'). Defaults to the source issue's project. If the source issue is a subtask, its parent link is only preserved when cloning into the same project.
`include_links`	No	Whether to re-create the source issue's other issue links (e.g. 'blocks', 'relates to') on the clone, preserving their type and direction relative to each linked issue
`link_to_original`	No	Whether to create a 'Cloners' issue link between the new clone and the source issue, matching Jira's built-in Clone action
`additional_fields`	No	(Optional) Dictionary of fields to override or add on top of the fields copied from the source issue. Example: {'priority': {'name': 'High'}}
`include_custom_fields`	No	Whether to copy all populated custom fields from the source issue (e.g., Epic Name, Epic Link, and other customfield_* values)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.2Oct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / include_links

Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Whether to re-create the source issue's other issue links (e.g. 'blocks', 'relates to') on the clone, preserving their type and direction relative to each linked issue",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Addedv0.9.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden and does so well: it explains per-field pre-verification against the create screen, partial-clone semantics (excluded fields listed under excluded_fields rather than failing), the Cloners link creation, and ValueError conditions including read-only mode. It does not state what happens to attachments/comments/worklogs, which a clone action often drops, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

It is on the long side, but it is front-loaded with the purpose and mechanism before args/returns/raises, and each section carries distinct information. The field enumeration and Args are slightly redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers mechanism, field-copy behavior, failure modes, and the excluded_fields outcome, and an output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 every parameter already carries its own detailed description in the schema, and the description's Args list largely restates them. It adds only the aggregate list of copied fields, which is useful framing but not per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Clone an existing Jira issue by copying its fields into a new issue') and the second explains the underlying mechanism precisely. It distinguishes itself from jira_create_issue by framing the tool as a reproduction of Jira's UI Clone action rather than a plain create.

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?

It clearly states the context of use ('Jira does not provide a single clone REST endpoint... this tool reproduces the Jira UI's built-in Clone action'), which tells the agent when this is the right tool. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct pointer to siblings like jira_create_issue or jira_link_to_epic.

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

Deploy Server