Skip to main content
Glama
SharkyND

mcp-atlassian

by SharkyND
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jira_get_issue

Retrieve a Jira issue's details by key, including epic links, relationships, comments, and selected fields to support analysis and decision-making.

Instructions

Get details of a specific Jira issue including its Epic links and relationship information.

Args: ctx: The FastMCP context. issue_key: Jira issue key. fields: Comma-separated list of fields to return (e.g., 'summary,status,customfield_10010'), a single field as a string (e.g., 'duedate'), '*all' for all fields, or omitted for essentials. expand: Optional fields to expand. comment_limit: Maximum number of comments. properties: Issue properties to return. update_history: Whether to update issue view history.

Returns: JSON string representing the Jira issue object.

Raises: ValueError: If the Jira client is not configured or available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expandNo(Optional) Fields to expand. Examples: 'renderedFields' (for rendered content), 'transitions' (for available status transitions), 'changelog' (for history)
fieldsNo(Optional) Comma-separated list of fields to return (e.g., 'summary,status,customfield_10010'). You may also provide a single field as a string (e.g., 'duedate'). Use '*all' for all fields (including custom fields), or omit for essential fields only.status,versions,description,created,priority,reporter,fixVersions,updated,labels,issuetype,assignee,summary
issue_keyYesJira issue key (e.g., 'PROJ-123')
propertiesNo(Optional) A comma-separated list of issue properties to return
comment_limitNoMaximum number of comments to include (0 or null for no comments)
update_historyNoWhether to update the issue view history for the requesting user

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by saying the return value is a JSON string and that a ValueError is raised if the Jira client is unavailable. However, it does not disclose that 'update_history' defaults to true, which means the call can mutate view history, nor does it describe any other side effects or required permissions.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, followed by a structured Args/Returns/Raises layout that is easy to scan. Some redundancy exists because each parameter is described again even though the schema already covers it, but the overall size is still reasonable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-oriented single-issue retrieval tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, documents all parameters, and notes the configuration-failure case. The main gaps are lack of explicit alternative routing and the unmentioned default side effect of update_history, but these are minor relative to the schema and output schema coverage.

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 baseline is 3; the description mostly repeats the schema's parameter text and adds no new semantic meaning. It also lists 'ctx' as an argument even though it is not part of the input schema, which is mildly confusing even if it is an implementation detail.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific Jira issue,' immediately distinguishing it from list/search/project-board siblings. The extra clause about 'Epic links and relationship information' narrows the scope further, so an agent can tell this from jira_search or jira_get_project_issues.

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?

The description clearly establishes the context for use: retrieve a single issue by its key. It does not name alternatives or give explicit 'use this instead of search when you have a key' guidance, but the resource scope is clear enough that an agent should not confuse it with bulk or search tools.

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