Move Jira issues to a new status using issue key and transition ID. Set confirm=true to execute, or omit for a preview.
Mover un issue a un nuevo estado. Requiere confirm: true para ejecutar. Sin confirm devuelve preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | true para ejecutar la transicion | |
| issueKey | Yes | Clave del issue (ej: PROJ-123) | |
| transitionId | Yes | ID de la transicion (obtenido de df_statuses) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key dual-mode behavior: actual execution only with confirm=true, and a preview otherwise. This goes beyond the schema and alerts the agent to the non-destructive default.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action, execution requirement, and fallback preview behavior are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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?
For a simple three-parameter mutation tool, the description plus the fully documented schema covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. It lacks details about the preview's return shape or permissions, but these are minor given the straightforward scope and no output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the effect of omitting confirm: it returns a preview. This complements the schema's 'true para ejecutar la transicion' and clarifies the confirm parameter's role.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Mover un issue a un nuevo estado' (move an issue to a new state). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like df_assign or df_comment by framing the operation as a state transition.
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?
It gives concrete invocation guidance: 'Requiere confirm: true para ejecutar. Sin confirm devuelve preview.' This tells the agent when the tool executes versus when it only previews, and explicitly states the required confirm flag. It does not discuss alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.