JIRA MCP Server

jira_get_issue

Retrieve detailed information about a JIRA issue by its key. Optionally specify fields to reduce response size and improve performance.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific JIRA issue by its key (e.g., PROJ-123). Returns all fields by default including custom fields. Use the fields parameter to reduce response size.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issueKey": "<issueKey>"
    },
    "name": "jira_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	No	Fields to include in the response. Default: all fields. Use to reduce response size by specifying only needed fields.
`issueKey`	Yes	The issue key (e.g., PROJ-123)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.13Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns all fields by default, includes custom fields, and that the fields parameter can reduce response size. The verb 'Get' appropriately signals a read-only operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose and add only valuable usage guidance. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential behavior and the fields parameter. It lacks explicit return-value structure, but the default-to-all-fields mention plus schema enumerations provide adequate context.

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 adds no significant meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the example key and the field-reduction guidance already present in the schema.

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 'gets detailed information about a specific JIRA issue by its key' with an example key format. It also notes that all fields are returned by default, distinguishing it from sibling tools like history or comments.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description establishes when this tool is appropriate: when you have a specific issue key and need its details. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from search/list siblings.

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