Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
brianstone

Jira MCP Server

by brianstone
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Jira MCP 서버

⚠️ 이 MCP 서버는 진행 중인 작업입니다. ⚠️

Jira와 통신하는 MCP 서버.

이 기능은 Jira Data Center REST 엔드포인트( /rest/api/2 )에서 작동할 수 있지만, 현재로서는 클라우드 엔드포인트( /rest/api/3 )만 테스트되었습니다.

서버 실행

  1. 이 저장소를 복제하세요

  2. 저장소로 cd

  3. npm install 실행하세요

  4. npm run build 실행하세요

MCP 클라이언트에서 다음 환경 변수를 추가해야 합니다.

  • JIRA_PROJECT_URL - 끝에 /rest/api/3 포함합니다. https://your-project.atlassian.net/rest/api/3 와 같은 형식이어야 합니다.

  • JIRA_USER_EMAIL - 사용자 이메일 주소입니다. API 권한 부여에 필요합니다.

  • JIRA_API_KEY - Jira API 키입니다. Jira API 키 생성 및 관리에 대한 정보는 여기에서 확인할 수 있습니다.

  • JIRA_PROJECT_KEY - 새 이슈를 만드는 데 사용할 기본 키입니다.

Related MCP server: Jira Cloud MCP Server

사용 가능한 도구

  • 키로 문제 가져오기

  • 검색 문제

  • 문제 생성

  • 문제 할당

  • 문제 할당 해제

  • 이슈 편집

  • 전환 문제

  • 보관 문제

자원

설정은 되었지만 구현은 되지 않았습니다.

MCP 클라이언트(Claude Desktop, Cursor 등) 설정

MCP 클라이언트의 구성 파일에 서버를 추가합니다.

지엑스피1

문제

문제가 발견되면 알려주시기 바랍니다.

Available Tools

1 tool
example_toolC

An example tool that processes messages

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoMessage to process

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided and the description lacks any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or read-only/mutating nature.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While short, the description is under-specified and does not earn its place with substantive information.

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 the simple schema and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide complete context, e.g., what the output is or expected behavior.

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 the description adds no value beyond the schema definition for the only parameter 'message'.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'processes messages' is vague and does not specify what kind of processing or distinguish from sibling tools like api-client, data-processor, and file-handler.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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.

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

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

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

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.
    65
    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.
    195
    4
    MIT

Appeared in Searches