Skip to main content
Glama
cosmix

JIRA MCP Server

by cosmix

update_issue

Modify existing JIRA issues by updating fields like status, priority, or assignee to track progress and manage project tasks.

Instructions

Update an existing JIRA issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesThe key of the issue to update
fieldsYesFields to update on the issue

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:164-183 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema definition
    {
      name: "update_issue",
      description: "Update an existing JIRA issue",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueKey: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The key of the issue to update",
          },
          fields: {
            type: "object",
            description: "Fields to update on the issue",
            additionalProperties: true,
          },
        },
        required: ["issueKey", "fields"],
        additionalProperties: false,
      },
    },
  • MCP tool handler for 'update_issue': validates arguments, calls JiraApiService.updateIssue, and returns success response
    case "update_issue": {
      if (
        !args.issueKey ||
        typeof args.issueKey !== "string" ||
        !args.fields ||
        typeof args.fields !== "object"
      ) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidParams,
          "issueKey and fields object are required",
        );
      }
      await this.jiraApi.updateIssue(args.issueKey, args.fields);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(
              { message: `Issue ${args.issueKey} updated successfully` },
              null,
              2,
            ),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • JiraApiService helper method that sends PUT request to JIRA REST API to update the specified issue fields
    async updateIssue(
      issueKey: string,
      fields: Record<string, any>
    ): Promise<void> {
      await this.fetchJson(`/rest/api/3/issue/${issueKey}`, {
        method: "PUT",
        body: JSON.stringify({ fields }),
      });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unchanged fields, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits/error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools that also modify issues, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, output expectations, or differentiation from alternatives, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('issueKey' and 'fields'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, format expectations, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing JIRA issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'transition_issue' which also modifies issues, or explain what specific aspects can be updated versus other tools.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transition_issue' or 'add_comment'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue key) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/cosmix/jira-mcp'

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