Skip to main content
Glama

jira_summarize_attachments

Summarize attachments on a Jira issue by extracting readable text from PDFs, Office files, and data formats, returning per-file markdown summaries.

Instructions

Scan and summarize attachments (PDFs, images, Office documents) from a Jira issue.

Uses Microsoft MarkItDown to extract readable content from each supported attachment:

PDF → full text extracted via pdfminer • Images → EXIF metadata (for a visual description use jira_get_attachment_images) • DOCX / PPTX / XLSX → document text and structure as Markdown • CSV / JSON / XML → raw content rendered as Markdown

Unsupported file types (e.g., zip, mp4, exe) are skipped and listed under "skipped" in the response.

Requires the markitdown package — add it with: uv add 'markitdown[pdf]'

To have a vision-capable model see image attachments (screenshots, diagrams, charts), use jira_get_attachment_images instead — it returns the raw images as content blocks your model can view directly.

Args: ctx: The FastMCP context. issue_key: Jira issue key (e.g., 'PROJ-123'). filename_filter: Optional comma-separated list of filenames to process. max_chars_per_file: Truncation limit per file in characters (0 = unlimited).

Returns: JSON string with per-attachment summaries including extracted markdown content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_keyYesJira issue key whose attachments should be summarized (e.g., 'PROJ-123')
filename_filterNo(Optional) Comma-separated list of specific filenames to process. When omitted all supported attachments in the issue are processed.
max_chars_per_fileNoMaximum characters of extracted text to include per file in the response. Use 0 for no limit. Default is 4000.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of MarkItDown, detailed extraction behavior per file type, handling of unsupported types (listed under 'skipped'), truncation behavior, and a package dependency. It could further clarify whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but the summary nature strongly implies non-mutating.

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 with a clear opening, bullet-pointed file type breakdown, and distinct sections for behavior and arguments. It is somewhat verbose and repeats schema information, but each section serves a purpose, making the length acceptable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's complexity thoroughly: supported/unsupported file types, extraction method, truncation, package requirement, and alternative tool for images. Since an output schema is present, the return value (JSON string with 'skipped' key) is adequately described without requiring further detail.

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's Args section largely repeats schema descriptions without adding new semantics, though it does restate the default values and the meaning of 0. No additional parameter insight is provided beyond what the schema already offers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Scan and summarize attachments (PDFs, images, Office documents) from a Jira issue.' It identifies the specific verb (scan/summarize), resource (attachments on a Jira issue), and scope, distinguishing it from the sibling jira_get_attachment_images, which is explicitly contrasted for image viewing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'To have a vision-capable model *see* image attachments (screenshots, diagrams, charts), use jira_get_attachment_images instead.' It also clarifies supported vs. unsupported file types, ensuring the agent can decide when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SharkyND/mcp-atlassian'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server