Skip to main content
Glama
SharkyND

mcp-atlassian

by SharkyND
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jira_get_issue

Retrieve full details for a specific Jira issue by key, including status, assignee, comments, Epic links, and relationships. Use it to inspect issue data before updating or reporting.

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.labels,status,description,assignee,reporter,updated,priority,summary,versions,fixVersions,issuetype,created
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 changedv0.10.2
    • 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. 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"
  4. 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"
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return form (JSON string), an error condition (ValueError if the client is unconfigured), and that a history side effect exists via update_history defaulting to true. It still omits the explicit read-only/non-destructive profile and any auth constraints, leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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/Returns/Raises block duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions verbatim rather than adding value. The structure is predictable but contains redundancy that a reader must skim past.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary, and the description still adds a Raises note. For a six-parameter read tool with full schema coverage the description is largely sufficient, with only the safety/auth context underdeveloped.

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 is already documented in the schema, and the Args section largely restates those descriptions (fields, expand, comment_limit, properties) without adding new syntax or default semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific Jira issue') plus scope ('Epic links and relationship information'), which is clear. However it does not differentiate itself from siblings like jira_search or jira_get_project_issues, so an agent still has to infer when a single-issue fetch is preferable.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite many sibling read tools (jira_search, jira_get_project_issues). Some implicit context is supplied via parameter descriptions (e.g. omitting 'fields' for essentials), but routing guidance is absent.

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