Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SharkyND

mcp-atlassian

by SharkyND
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jira_search

Search Jira issues using JQL (Jira Query Language).

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

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'assignee,description,labels,updated,issuetype,fixVersions,priority,summary,versions,reporter,created,status
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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / default
      Previous value: -"labels,status,description,assignee,reporter,updated,priority,summary,versions,fixVersions,issuetype,created"New value: +"assignee,description,labels,updated,issuetype,fixVersions,priority,summary,versions,reporter,created,status"
  2. 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"
  3. 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"
  4. Addedv0.7.0
  5. Removedv0.6.2-rc.1
  6. 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 implies a read operation via 'Search' and mentions pagination in the Returns note, but says nothing about permissions, result caps (the 50-result limit is only in the schema), or rate limits. Weak disclosure for a zero-annotation 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, but the Args block repeats parameter names already fully described in the schema, and the Returns block partially duplicates the output schema. Some content does not earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the parameter surface is fully documented in the schema. However, for a zero-annotation, JQL-driven tool with many overlapping siblings, the absence of any routing or behavioral context leaves it merely adequate.

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 parameters (including JQL examples and defaults), establishing a baseline of 3. The description's Args list merely restates parameter names without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 (Search) and resource (Jira issues) with the mechanism (JQL). Clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like jira_get_project_issues, jira_get_board_issues, or jira_get_sprint_issues that also return issue sets.

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 guidance on when to use general JQL search versus the scoped sibling tools (project/board/sprint issue getters) or jira_get_issue for a single issue. Usage must be fully inferred.

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