Skip to main content
Glama
SharkyND

mcp-atlassian

by SharkyND
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jira_get_board_issues

Retrieve all Jira issues for a specific board using a JQL query, with pagination and selectable fields to filter results.

Instructions

Get all issues linked to a specific board filtered by JQL.

Args: ctx: The FastMCP context. board_id: The ID of the board. jql: JQL query string to filter issues. fields: Comma-separated fields to return. start_at: Starting index for pagination. limit: Maximum number of results. expand: Optional fields to expand.

Returns: JSON string representing the search results including pagination info.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jqlYesJQL query string (Jira Query Language). Examples: - Find Epics: "issuetype = Epic AND project = PROJ" - Find issues in Epic: "parent = PROJ-123" - Find by status: "status = 'In Progress' AND project = PROJ" - Find by assignee: "assignee = currentUser()" - Find recently updated: "updated >= -7d AND project = PROJ" - Find by label: "labels = frontend AND project = PROJ" - Find by priority: "priority = High AND project = PROJ"
limitNoMaximum number of results (1-50)
expandNoOptional fields to expand in the response (e.g., 'changelog').version
fieldsNoComma-separated fields to return in the results. Use '*all' for all fields, or specify individual fields like 'summary,status,assignee,priority'labels,status,description,assignee,reporter,updated,priority,summary,versions,fixVersions,issuetype,created
board_idYesThe id of the board (e.g., '1001')
start_atNoStarting index for pagination (0-based)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / default
      Previous value: -"status,versions,description,created,priority,reporter,fixVersions,updated,labels,issuetype,assignee,summary"New value: +"labels,status,description,assignee,reporter,updated,priority,summary,versions,fixVersions,issuetype,created"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / default
      Previous value: -"reporter,issuetype,status,labels,created,summary,assignee,updated,versions,description,priority,fixVersions"New value: +"status,versions,description,created,priority,reporter,fixVersions,updated,labels,issuetype,assignee,summary"
  3. Addedv0.7.0
  4. Removedv0.6.2-rc.1
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a read operation and mentions that the return includes pagination info, but it does not disclose auth/permission requirements, rate limits, or any behavioral caveats beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is well front-loaded, but the Args and Returns boilerplate largely duplicates the input schema and the existing output schema, adding length without new information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Schema and output schema are rich, so return values need not be explained. What is missing is sibling differentiation among the dense cluster of Jira issue-retrieval tools, which leaves an agent without guidance on selecting this one 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 the schema already documents every parameter richly (including JQL examples and field lists). The Args list in the description merely restates parameter names with no added semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (Get), resource (issues), and scope (linked to a specific board, filtered by JQL), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like jira_get_project_issues, jira_search, or jira_get_sprint_issues, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many similar issue-retrieval siblings (jira_search, jira_get_project_issues, jira_get_sprint_issues). The 'filtered by JQL' phrase implies a context but gives no explicit selection criteria or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools