Skip to main content
Glama
SharkyND

mcp-atlassian

by SharkyND
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jira_search

Search Jira issues with JQL queries to retrieve matching tasks, bugs, and epics. Filter by project, fields, and pagination for targeted results.

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'status,versions,description,created,priority,reporter,fixVersions,updated,labels,issuetype,assignee,summary
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 changedv0.9.0
    • 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. Addedv0.7.0
  3. Removedv0.6.2-rc.1
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the return format (JSON string with pagination info), which is useful, but does not mention read-only status, authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or how projects_filter interacts with environment variables. This is a thin behavioral disclosure 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured as an Args/Returns docstring, front-loading the purpose and then summarizing parameters. It is slightly redundant with the schema's parameter descriptions, but remains concise and scannable without sacrificing necessary context.

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?

The description covers the essential outcome (search results as JSON with pagination info) and lists all six parameters. Given that an output schema exists and the schema already documents parameter details, this is reasonably complete. Missing usage guidance relative to siblings is the main gap.

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 lists parameter names but adds no meaning beyond the schema's detailed explanations and examples. It does not compensate with extra context, but it also does not lose value.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource ('Search Jira issues using JQL'), making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like jira_get_project_issues or jira_get_board_issues, so it falls short of 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a JQL-based search is needed, and the parameter list helps clarify inputs. But it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over adjacent search tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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