Jira MCP

remove_watcher

Remove a user from a Jira ticket's watchers. Supply the issue key and username to stop that person from receiving ticket updates.

Instructions

Remove a user from the watchers of a Jira ticket

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": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>",
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "remove_watcher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes	Jira username to remove
`ticket_id`	Yes	Jira issue key, e.g. GEM-234

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.7.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state what happens when the user is not currently a watcher, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response indicates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the action is immediately clear.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It omits error/edge-case behavior (user not a watcher, invalid ticket) that an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 both parameters documented in the schema (including the GEM-234 issue-key format), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (user from watchers of a Jira ticket), which is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_watcher via the verb, but never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternates (e.g. add_watcher for the inverse). Usage is only inferable from the verb itself, which is minimal guidance.

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