Skip to main content
Glama

jira_update_issue

Update an existing Jira issue: change fields like assignee or summary, update status, add Epic links, and attach files. Provide the issue key and a dictionary of field updates to apply changes.

Instructions

Update an existing Jira issue including changing status, adding Epic links, updating fields, etc.

Args: ctx: The FastMCP context. issue_key: Jira issue key. fields: Dictionary of fields to update. additional_fields: Optional dictionary of additional fields. attachments: Optional JSON array string or comma-separated list of file paths.

Returns: JSON string representing the updated issue object and attachment results.

Raises: ValueError: If in read-only mode or Jira client unavailable, or invalid input.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesDictionary of fields to update. For 'assignee', provide a string identifier (email, name, or accountId). Example: `{'assignee': 'user@example.com', 'summary': 'New Summary'}`
issue_keyYesJira issue key (e.g., 'PROJ-123')
attachmentsNo(Optional) JSON string array or comma-separated list of file paths to attach to the issue. Example: '/path/to/file1.txt,/path/to/file2.txt' or ['/path/to/file1.txt','/path/to/file2.txt']
additional_fieldsNo(Optional) Dictionary of additional fields to update. Use this for custom fields or more complex updates.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning ValueError when in read-only mode or if the Jira client is unavailable, and states the return format. However, it does not discuss permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects beyond mutation, leaving the behavioral profile only partially transparent.

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 Args, Returns, and Raises sections, and is reasonably concise. The Args section duplicates schema information somewhat but does not hurt readability. No filler or wasted sentences, though it could be tightened by removing redundant parameter listings.

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?

The tool has an output schema and 100% schema coverage, which reduces the need for explaining return values. The description includes error conditions and return format, making it functionally complete. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this general update tool versus specialized siblings like jira_transition_issue and jira_link_to_epic, so contextual completeness is only 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., assignee format, attachment examples). The description merely lists parameter names without adding new semantic meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra 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 states the tool updates an existing Jira issue with a specific verb and resource, and lists example update types like changing status and adding Epic links. It distinguishes from create/delete/get, but does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like jira_transition_issue or jira_link_to_epic.

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?

The description says what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as jira_transition_issue or jira_link_to_epic. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases, so an agent gets no selection help beyond the general 'update' scope.

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