jira_list_componentsList Jira project components and their IDs to use when writing issues that require exact component names. Enter a project key to retrieve component identifiers.
List a project's components with their ids (names must match exactly when writing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior—listing components and returning ids—and adds a useful invariant about exact name matching. However, it does not mention response shape, pagination, permissions, or whether the project parameter accepts a key, ID, or name. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence front-loads the core action and outcome, and the parenthetical adds a valuable constraint without padding. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter shape and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns and why exact names matter. The only notable omission is the accepted format of the project argument, but the overall definition is sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines 'project' as a string with no description, so 0% coverage. The tool description adds that the parameter refers to 'a project' and that the result exposes components and ids. While it doesn't specify whether a project key or numeric ID is expected, the parameter's meaning is largely conveyed by the description and the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it lists a project's components and includes their ids. The phrase 'a project's components' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that operate on issues or Confluence pages, so an agent can disambiguate without needing the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical 'names must match exactly when writing' strongly implies this is the tool to use before creating/updating issue data that references components, but it does not explicitly say 'use this before jira_create_issue or jira_update_issue'. The usage context is clear enough but the intended when-to-use versus alternatives is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.