Fetch detailed information for a specific Jira issue by key, including summary, description, priority, status, assignee, and comments.
Get detailed information about a specific Jira issue by key (e.g. PROJ-123), including summary, description, priority, status, assignee, and comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_key | Yes | The Jira issue key, e.g. 'PROJ-123'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and it names the fields returned, which is useful. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, rate limits, handling of missing or inaccessible issues, or comment truncation/pagination.
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?
One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource and ending with the concrete return contents. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (summary, description, priority, status, assignee, comments), which compensates for the missing return contract. It is nearly complete for a simple single-parameter read, with only error/permission behavior left undescribed.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented with the same 'PROJ-123' example, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific Jira issue by key') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_my_jira_tickets or search_jira_tickets, which the 'by key' phrasing only implicitly separates.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the key-format example signals you need a known issue key, which routes away from search-based siblings. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.