Skip to main content
Glama
aaronsb

Jira Insights MCP

by aaronsb
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different Jira Insights components: objects, object types, and schemas. The descriptions specify unique domains (objects, object types, schemas) with no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'manage_jira_insight_' prefix followed by the specific component (object, object_type, schema). This predictable naming convention enhances readability and usability across the tool set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the count feels thin for a server named 'Jira Insights MCP', which might imply broader functionality. However, it covers core management areas adequately, though it could benefit from additional tools for querying or reporting to be more comprehensive.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools provide CRUD operations for key Jira Insights components (objects, types, schemas), covering essential management tasks. A minor gap exists in lacking dedicated query or analysis tools beyond AQL mentioned in one description, but core workflows are well-supported.

  • Average 2.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'CRUD operations and AQL queries' but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response formats. For a tool with 16 parameters and complex operations like delete/update, this is insufficient—it doesn't explain what 'manage' entails beyond high-level operations.

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

    Conciseness1/5

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

    The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification—it's a single sentence that fails to convey necessary details for such a complex tool. It lacks front-loaded critical information and doesn't structure guidance effectively, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps. For a multi-operation tool managing objects, more comprehensive guidance is needed to support effective agent use.

    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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies parameters relate to CRUD and AQL operations but doesn't elaborate on specific usage or interactions. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights like parameter dependencies or examples.

    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's purpose: 'Manage Jira Insights objects with CRUD operations and AQL queries.' It specifies the resource (Jira Insights objects) and the operations (CRUD + AQL queries). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_jira_insight_object_type' or 'manage_jira_insight_schema,' which likely manage different resources.

    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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. It mentions CRUD operations and AQL queries but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for basic object management while siblings handle types/schemas, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'CRUD operations' without detailing permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response behavior. It lacks critical information for a mutation-capable 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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances needed for safe and effective use.

    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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic 'CRUD operations', which aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states the tool performs CRUD operations on Jira Insights object types, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_jira_insight_object' or 'manage_jira_insight_schema', leaving ambiguity about scope boundaries.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. The description mentions CRUD operations but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states 'manage with CRUD operations.' It doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what 'delete' actually destroys, or response formats. For a multi-operation tool with mutation capabilities, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a complex tool with 7 parameters supporting 5 different operations (including destructive ones like delete) and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or operational constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

    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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'CRUD operations' mention, which doesn't provide additional semantic context about individual parameters or their relationships.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states the tool manages Jira Insights object schemas with CRUD operations, which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'manage' entails. It doesn't distinguish this schema management tool from its sibling object and object type management tools, leaving the scope vague.

    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?

    No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus its siblings (manage_jira_insight_object and manage_jira_insight_object_type). The description mentions CRUD operations but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for choosing this schema management tool over alternatives.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

jira-insights-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

jira-insights-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/aaronsb/jira-insights-mcp'

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