JIRA MCP Server

jira_transition_issue

Move a Jira issue to a new status by providing the issue key and a valid transition ID. Get available transitions with jira_get_transitions to ensure correctness.

Instructions

Transition an issue to a new status. Use jira_get_transitions first to get valid transition IDs.

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>",
      "transitionId": "<transitionId>"
    },
    "name": "jira_transition_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comment`	No	Optional comment to add with the transition
`issueKey`	Yes	The issue key (e.g., PROJ-123)
`transitionId`	Yes	The transition ID (from jira_get_transitions)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.13Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only mentions the prerequisite for valid transition IDs, but does not explain success/failure behavior, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 description is adequate for a simple transition but lacks return value info and failure semantics. With no annotations and no output schema, it could do more to explain the outcome of the transition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all 3 parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds value by pointing to jira_get_transitions as the source for transitionId. The comment parameter is already adequately described 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?

States 'Transition an issue to a new status' – a clear verb+resource that differentiates from create/update tools. The prerequisite mention adds context without obscuring the primary purpose.

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?

'Use jira_get_transitions first' explicitly tells the agent the necessary prerequisite. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the direction is clear enough for a transition tool.

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