Jira MCP

update_comment

Replace the text of an existing Jira comment by providing the ticket ID, comment ID, and new content. Use get_ticket with include_comments to find comment IDs.

Instructions

Replace the text of an existing comment on a Jira ticket. Comment IDs are shown by get_ticket with include_comments.

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": {
      "body": "<body>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	New comment text (plain text)
`ticket_id`	Yes	Jira issue key, e.g. GEM-234
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment ID, e.g. 10001

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.7.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Replace the text' usefully discloses overwrite semantics (vs. appending), which the name update_comment alone does not convey. It still omits permissions required, reversibility, and error behavior for a mutation tool, leaving material 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the ID-sourcing note appended. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and how to source an ID. It does not address permissions, what happens to existing content/metadata, or failure modes, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that comment IDs come from get_ticket with include_comments, a small sourcing hint that does not change the baseline 3.

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 (Replace) and resource (text of an existing comment on a Jira ticket), which cleanly separates it from add_comment and delete_comment in the sibling list. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence tells the agent where to obtain comment_id (from get_ticket with include_comments), which is genuinely useful invocation guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not contrast it with update_ticket or add_comment, so it stays at implied-usage level.

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