Skip to main content
Glama
andreimaxim

atlassian-mcp

by andreimaxim
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools serve distinct purposes: one is a generic authenticated GET for any Jira or Confluence path, while the other is specifically a Jira JQL search. Although there is some overlap in that the GET could be used for search, the specific search tool is clearly targeted at JQL queries, making confusion unlikely.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent: one tool uses the 'atlassian_' prefix while the other uses 'jira_', and the verbs 'get' and 'search' do not follow a clear pattern. With only two tools, the lack of a unified convention is noticeable and could confuse agents expecting a consistent prefix.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is borderline thin for a server covering Atlassian's broad API surface, but it is not extreme enough to warrant a 1 or 2. The count is on the low end, feeling somewhat sparse but not entirely unreasonable for a focused read-only utility.

    Completeness2/5

    The server only offers read-only operations: a generic GET and a Jira search. It lacks write capabilities, Confluence-specific search, and any other common Atlassian operations, making it significantly incomplete for a platform with such a wide API. Agents would frequently hit dead ends when needing update or create functionality.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 8 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate read-only safety. It adds useful behavioral context that large output may be truncated, which is not present in annotations or schema. However, it does not mention authentication details or response format beyond the schema.

    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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the key caveat about truncation. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity, the schema clarity, and the annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It notes potential truncation, which is critical for a generic GET endpoint. It does not explicitly describe return format, but the absence of an output schema and the generic nature of the tool make this acceptable. A 4 reflects the strong coverage of usage context.

    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% for the two parameters (path and query). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema (e.g., path must be site-relative, which is already in the schema description). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents each parameter.

    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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Make one authenticated GET request to a site-relative Jira or Confluence API path.' This distinguishes it from sibling jira_search, which focuses on search rather than direct path-based retrieval.

    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 description provides a clear context for use (direct API GET requests on Jira/Confluence) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling jira_search or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond annotations by stating it returns Jira's raw response and may truncate large output—useful behavioral context. It could mention pagination behavior, but the nextPageToken parameter hints at that.

    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 three sentences, each earning its place: the endpoint, the read-only uniqueness, and the response behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action and remains compact without fluff.

    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?

    Given the schema covers 75% of params, annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists, the description provides the essential context: endpoint, POST method, raw return, and truncation. It stops short of explaining pagination flow or error behavior, but the nextPageToken param implies pagination. Overall, a solid contextual package.

    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 high (75% of params described), so the description need not repeat param details. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already explains jql, fields, and nextPageToken. maxResults has constraints but no description; the description does not compensate for that gap. Baseline 3 applies.

    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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Jira issues' and references the exact endpoint. It distinguishes from the sibling 'atlassian_get' by noting this is a POST operation, clarifying its unique role.

    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?

    The description provides a clear context signal: 'This is the only read-only POST exposed by the server,' which implies its usage when a read-only POST is needed. It does not explicitly compare against atlassian_get, but the unique read-only POST framing offers practical guidance. No explicit exclusions are stated.

    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

atlassian-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

atlassian-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/andreimaxim/atlassian-mcp'

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