Skip to main content
Glama
SharkyND

mcp-atlassian

by SharkyND
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jira_get_sprint_issues

Retrieve Jira issues from a specified sprint, with pagination and selectable fields for focused sprint reporting.

Instructions

Get jira issues from sprint.

Args: ctx: The FastMCP context. sprint_id: The ID of the sprint. fields: Comma-separated fields to return. start_at: Starting index. limit: Maximum results.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results (1-50)
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
start_atNoStarting index for pagination (0-based)
sprint_idYesThe id of sprint (e.g., '10001')

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are a JSON string with pagination info, but says nothing about read-only semantics beyond the implied 'Get', authentication requirements, rate limits, or ordering of results.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the Args and Returns sections largely duplicate structured data already present in the input schema and output schema, adding bulk 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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description needn't re-explain parameters or return shape, and the core intent is conveyed. It remains thin on routing context (which sibling to prefer) and on sprint-versus-board scoping, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 all four parameters with ranges, defaults, and examples. The Args block merely restates each parameter name and type, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource ('Get jira issues from sprint'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like jira_get_board_issues, jira_get_project_issues, or jira_search, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance on when to use sprint-scoped issue retrieval versus board- or project-scoped siblings, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid sprint ID from jira_get_sprints_from_board). Usage is only implied by the name.

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