Skip to main content
Glama
hackdonalds

JIRA MCP Server

by hackdonalds

Update JIRA Issue

jira_update_issue

Update JIRA issues by modifying summary, description, assignee, or priority using the issue key.

Instructions

Update an existing JIRA issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesThe JIRA issue key
summaryNoNew summary
descriptionNoNew description
assigneeNoNew assignee account ID
priorityNoNew priority name

Implementation Reference

  • The inline async handler function that implements the logic for updating a JIRA issue. It constructs updateData based on provided fields and calls jiraClient.updateIssue.
    async ({ issueKey, summary, description, assignee, priority }) => {
      logger.info('Updating JIRA issue', { issueKey });
      try {
        const updateData = {};
        
        if (summary) updateData.summary = summary;
        if (description) updateData.description = description;
        if (assignee) updateData.assignee = { accountId: assignee };
        if (priority) updateData.priority = { name: priority };
    
        await jiraClient.updateIssue(issueKey, updateData);
        logger.info('Successfully updated issue', { 
          issueKey,
          fieldsUpdated: Object.keys(updateData)
        });
        return {
          content: [{
            type: 'text',
            text: `Issue ${issueKey} updated successfully`
          }]
        };
      } catch (error) {
        logger.error('Failed to update issue', { issueKey, error: error.message });
        throw error;
      }
    }
  • Input schema using Zod (z) for validating tool parameters: required issueKey, optional summary, description, assignee, priority.
    inputSchema: {
      issueKey: z.string().describe('The JIRA issue key'),
      summary: z.string().optional().describe('New summary'),
      description: z.string().optional().describe('New description'),
      assignee: z.string().optional().describe('New assignee account ID'),
      priority: z.string().optional().describe('New priority name')
    }
  • server.js:297-337 (registration)
    Registration of the 'jira_update_issue' tool with server.registerTool, including title, description, inputSchema, and the handler function.
    // Register jira_update_issue tool
    server.registerTool(
      'jira_update_issue',
      {
        title: 'Update JIRA Issue',
        description: 'Update an existing JIRA issue',
        inputSchema: {
          issueKey: z.string().describe('The JIRA issue key'),
          summary: z.string().optional().describe('New summary'),
          description: z.string().optional().describe('New description'),
          assignee: z.string().optional().describe('New assignee account ID'),
          priority: z.string().optional().describe('New priority name')
        }
      },
      async ({ issueKey, summary, description, assignee, priority }) => {
        logger.info('Updating JIRA issue', { issueKey });
        try {
          const updateData = {};
          
          if (summary) updateData.summary = summary;
          if (description) updateData.description = description;
          if (assignee) updateData.assignee = { accountId: assignee };
          if (priority) updateData.priority = { name: priority };
    
          await jiraClient.updateIssue(issueKey, updateData);
          logger.info('Successfully updated issue', { 
            issueKey,
            fieldsUpdated: Object.keys(updateData)
          });
          return {
            content: [{
              type: 'text',
              text: `Issue ${issueKey} updated successfully`
            }]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          logger.error('Failed to update issue', { issueKey, error: error.message });
          throw error;
        }
      }
    );
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. It states the tool updates issues but doesn't mention critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, if updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it conveys, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like partial updates. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any semantic context beyond implying that parameters correspond to updatable fields, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Update an existing JIRA issue' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('JIRA issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like jira_transition_issue (which also modifies issues) or specify what aspects can be updated, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue key), contrast with jira_create_issue for new issues or jira_transition_issue for status changes, or indicate any constraints like permission requirements.

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/hackdonalds/jira-mcp'

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