Jira MCP

Create issue

create_issue

Create Jira issues by providing a project key and summary; add optional issue type, labels, description, source ticket, and customer order.

Instructions

Create a Jira work item. Cloud v3 descriptions are sent as Atlassian Document Format. Source Ticket # and Customer Order # are written when those customfield ids are configured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`labels`	No	Optional Jira labels.
`summary`	Yes	Issue summary.
`issue_type`	No	Issue type name. Defaults to JIRA_ISSUE_TYPE (Task).
`description`	No	Plain-text description. Converted to ADF on Cloud v3.
`project_key`	Yes	Project key, for example SDG or SDE.
`source_ticket`	No	Ivanti IncidentNumber stored in Source Ticket #.
`customer_order`	No	Epicor OrderNum stored in Customer Order #.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`key`	Yes
`self_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare write semantics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: description text is converted to ADF on Cloud v3, and Source Ticket #/Customer Order # are only written when their customfield ids are configured. It omits auth requirements 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences that lead with the core action and follow with caveats; every clause carries information. The customfield sentence is slightly dense but not padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the ADF and customfield-config quirks that an agent could not infer, though it leaves permission/error behavior unstated.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's note that custom fields are conditionally written mirrors the schema wording rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Jira work item'), and the verb naturally distinguishes it from the sibling get_issue. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the read sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (project permissions, required fields), and no mention of the get_issue alternative for reads. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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

Deploy Server