Skip to main content
Glama
SharkyND

mcp-atlassian

by SharkyND
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jira_search

Search Jira issues using JQL (Jira Query Language) to filter and retrieve results with pagination.

Instructions

Search Jira issues using JQL (Jira Query Language).

Args: ctx: The FastMCP context. jql: JQL query string. fields: Comma-separated fields to return. limit: Maximum number of results. start_at: Starting index for pagination. projects_filter: Comma-separated list of project keys to filter by. 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)
expandNo(Optional) fields to expand. Examples: 'renderedFields', 'transitions', 'changelog'
fieldsNo(Optional) Comma-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)
projects_filterNo(Optional) Comma-separated list of project keys to filter results by. Overrides the environment variable JIRA_PROJECTS_FILTER if provided.

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 burden. It only restates parameters and says the return is a JSON string with pagination info; it omits read-only status, auth requirements, rate limits, JQL error behavior, and side effects. Two is appropriate.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence and is overall short. The Args block duplicates the input schema and the Returns line repeats what the output schema covers, but the description remains readable and not bloated.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained. Yet the description is thin on selection guidance and behavioral traits for a six-parameter tool, leaving an agent unsure when to choose it over sibling issue-retrieval tools. Adequate but incomplete.

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 six parameters in detail. The description's Args list merely restates parameter names with minimal descriptions that do not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: search Jira issues via JQL. However, it does not differentiate from sibling issue-retrieval tools like jira_get_project_issues, jira_get_board_issues, or jira_get_sprint_issues. Clear but not distinctive.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative references. The description never explains that simpler sibling tools may suffice for project, board, or sprint scoped queries, nor does it state prerequisites. Absent any guidance, this scores 2.

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