Jira MCP

get_comment

Retrieve a specific Jira ticket comment by ticket key and comment ID, with optional embedded images, when only that comment is needed instead of the whole ticket.

Instructions

Get one comment of a Jira ticket by its ID, e.g. from a ?focusedCommentId= link. Cheaper than get_ticket when only that comment matters.

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ticket_id`	Yes	Jira issue key, e.g. GEM-234
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment ID, e.g. 10001
`include_images`	No	Return the image attachments this comment embeds as viewable images (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.9.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does add a useful cost signal ('cheaper than get_ticket'). However, it says nothing about behavior on a missing or inaccessible comment, permission requirements, or what the returned comment contains, which matters for an unannotated 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the identity and the cost/routing rationale both front-loaded.

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 three-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers purpose, ID provenance, and cost tradeoff. Only error/not-found behavior is left unstated.

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 description coverage is already 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description earns the extra point by explaining where comment_id comes from ('?focusedCommentId= link'), giving provenance the schema does not provide.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get one comment of a Jira ticket by its ID') and scopes it to a single comment, which cleanly separates it from get_ticket and from comment-mutation siblings like update_comment and delete_comment.

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?

Explicitly names the preferred-over alternative ('Cheaper than get_ticket when only that comment matters'), giving an agent a clear selection rule. It stops short of covering when other comment tools apply, but the key routing decision is made.

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