Jira MCP

link_issues

Create a link between two Jira issues using a specified type such as Blocks or Relates.

Instructions

Create a link between two Jira tickets

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": {
      "inward_issue": "<inward_issue>",
      "outward_issue": "<outward_issue>"
    },
    "name": "link_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`link_type`	No	Link type: Blocks, Clones, Relates to, Duplicate, etc.	Blocks
`inward_issue`	Yes	Issue key being linked FROM, e.g. GEM-1
`outward_issue`	Yes	Issue key being linked TO, e.g. GEM-2

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a link' without disclosing whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the link already exists, authorization requirements, or side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Extremely concise (one sentence, 9 words). It earns its place but lacks some behavioral detail. Slightly too sparse for optimal completeness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and well-documented parameters via schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, missing behavioral context and usage guidance make it less complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Issue key being linked FROM'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create a link') and the resource ('between two Jira tickets'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with individual tickets (get, update, transition) or comments, not linking.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or limitations.

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