Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
brianstone

Jira MCP Server

by brianstone
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Jira MCP Server

⚠️ This MCP Server is a work in progress ⚠️

An MCP Server to communicate with Jira.

This may work with Jira Data Center rest endpoints (/rest/api/2), but as of right now only cloud endpoints have been tested (/rest/api/3).

Running the Server

  1. Clone this repo

  2. cd into the repo

  3. Run npm install

  4. Run npm run build

In your MCP client, you'll need to add the following environment variables:

  • JIRA_PROJECT_URL - Including /rest/api/3 at the end. This should look like https://your-project.atlassian.net/rest/api/3.

  • JIRA_USER_EMAIL - Your user email address. This is needed for Authorization with the API.

  • JIRA_API_KEY - Your Jira API key. You can find info on creating and managing Jira API keys here

  • JIRA_PROJECT_KEY - The default key you'd like to use for creating new issues

Related MCP server: Jira Cloud MCP Server

Available Tools

  • Get Issue By Key

  • Search Issues

  • Create Issue

  • Assign Issue

  • Unassign Issue

  • Edit Issue

  • Transition Issue

  • Archive Issues

Resources

Setup, but none implemented.

Setup with MCP Client (Claude Desktop, Cursor, etc.)

Add the server to the configuration file of your MCP Client.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "jira-mcp-server": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path-to-repo/jira-mcp-server/build/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "JIRA_PROJECT_URL": "https://project-url.atlassian.net/rest/api/3",
        "JIRA_USER_EMAIL": "your_email@example.com",
        "JIRA_API_KEY": "yourAPIkey",
        "JIRA_PROJECT_KEY": "ABC"
      }
    }
  }
}

Issues

Please open any issues if you encounter them.

Available Tools

1 tool
example_toolC

An example tool that processes messages

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoMessage to process

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 burden. It states the tool 'processes messages' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, permissions required, rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative. There's no fluff, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool's context is incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'processes' means, the return values, or behavioral aspects. For a tool with one parameter but unclear functionality, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.

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%, with the parameter 'message' documented as 'Message to process'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or processing details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool 'processes messages', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'processes' entails (e.g., filtering, transforming, analyzing) and doesn't differentiate from siblings, though none exist. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name, but lacks specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, such as context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description implies usage for message processing but offers no exclusions or scenarios. With no sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, but overall usage guidance is absent.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observedexample_tool
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool 'example_tool' has a distinct purpose by default, as there are no other tools to compare it to.

Naming Consistency5/5

The naming is trivially consistent because there is only one tool. The tool name 'example_tool' follows a snake_case pattern, and with no other tools, there is no inconsistency to evaluate.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a Jira MCP server, which typically involves managing issues, projects, workflows, and other entities. This minimal set suggests an incomplete or placeholder implementation, failing to cover the expected domain scope.

Completeness1/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for a Jira server. With only an 'example_tool' that processes messages, there are no tools for core Jira operations like creating, retrieving, updating, or deleting issues, projects, or other resources, leaving significant gaps that will cause agent failures.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Jira MCP Server

    AlexVulaj
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server for integrating with Jira Server instances, enabling natural language interactions to create, update, search, and manage issues and comments.
    37
    1
    MIT

  • Jira Cloud MCP Server

    aaronsb
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    MCP server for interacting with Jira Cloud instances. Enables issue management, JQL queries, project and sprint management, and batch operations via natural language interfaces.
    148
    4
    MIT

Appeared in Searches

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/brianstone/jira-mcp-server'

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