Skip to main content
Glama
SharkyND

mcp-atlassian

by SharkyND
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jira_update_issue

Update fields, status, epic links, or attachments on an existing Jira issue, including add/remove/set operations for fields needing special handling.

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. update: Optional dictionary of Jira "update" operations (add/remove/set) for fields that cannot be set via a direct overwrite. 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'}`
updateNo(Optional) Dictionary of Jira 'update' operations for fields that require add/remove/set semantics instead of a direct overwrite (e.g. issuelinks, labels, components). Each key maps to a list of operation dicts. Example: `{'issuelinks': [{'add': {'type': {'name': 'Tests'}, 'inwardIssue': {'key': 'PROJ-123'}}}]}`
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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / update
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "items": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "(Optional) Dictionary of Jira 'update' operations for fields that require add/remove/set semantics instead of a direct overwrite (e.g. issuelinks, labels, components). Each key maps to a list of operation dicts. Example: `{'issuelinks': [{'add': {'type': {'name': 'Tests'}, 'inwardIssue': {'key': 'PROJ-123'}}}]}`"
+}
  2. Addedv0.7.0
  3. Removedv0.6.2-rc.1
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a ValueError is raised in read-only mode or when the client is unavailable, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or the destructive nature of the operation.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the Args/Returns/Raises docstring block substantially duplicates the input schema, and 'etc.' is imprecise filler. Structure is standard but not tight.

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-format explanation is not required. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the definition leaves permission prerequisites and field-preservation semantics unspecified, which is more than an agent should have to infer.

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 five parameters with examples. The Args section largely restates the schema, adding minor semantic nuance via the update-operations phrasing that is also present in 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 and resource ('Update an existing Jira issue') and enumerates the kinds of changes it performs (status, Epic links, fields). However it overlaps with siblings like jira_transition_issue and jira_link_to_epic without explaining how it differs from them, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given siblings that also change status (jira_transition_issue) and Epic links (jira_link_to_epic), the omission of routing guidance is a real gap; the trailing 'etc.' further muddies scope.

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