better-jira-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Jira Create Issue

jira_create_issue

Create a Jira issue with project, type, summary, optional description and custom fields, then return the created issue from Jira for verification.

Instructions

Create an issue and return it re-read from Jira so you can verify it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	No	Optional JSON object string of extra fields. Examples: {"components": ["Backend"]} (exact names or {"id": ...}; unknown names are rejected) {"parent": "PROJ-100"} (epic or parent issue) {"labels": ["needs-review"]} {"priority": {"name": "High"}} {"assignee": {"accountId": "..."}} {"customfield_10001": "value"}
`project`	Yes	Project key, e.g. "PROJ".
`summary`	Yes	Title.
`issue_type`	Yes	"Task", "Bug", "Story", "Epic", "Subtask".
`description`	No	Markdown. Converted to ADF losslessly; headings, lists, code, links, bold, tables, and any characters like _ { } + are fine.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the returned issue is re-read from Jira for verification, but it omits permission requirements, duplicate-creation behavior, and failure modes.

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 says what the tool does and why the re-read behavior matters, with no redundancy or repetition of the title.

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?

The schema thoroughly documents all five parameters, an output schema exists, and the prose adds the re-read verification guarantee. A bit more context about permissions or explicit when-not-to-use conditions would make it fully 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% and every parameter already has meaningful descriptions, including examples for the fields parameter. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create an issue') and adds a distinctive post-condition ('return it re-read from Jira so you can verify it'). This clearly differentiates it from update, transition, and search siblings.

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 gives clear context: use this when a new issue needs to be created. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say to use jira_update_issue for existing issues, so it stops short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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

Install Server