Skip to main content
Glama

Create Customer Request

jira_create_customer_request
Destructive

Create a Jira Service Management customer request by specifying service desk, request type, and field values. Optionally add attachments, participants, or raise on behalf of another user.

Instructions

Create a Jira Service Management customer request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attachmentsNo(Optional) JSON array string of files to attach to the created request. Each object must contain 'filename', 'mime_type', and base64-encoded 'base64' content. Example: [{"filename": "log.txt", "mime_type": "text/plain", "base64": "aGVsbG8="}]
request_type_idYesRequest type ID (e.g., '23')
service_desk_idYesService desk ID (e.g., '4')
strict_on_behalfNoIf true, fail immediately when raiseOnBehalfOf cannot be applied. If false, retry without raiseOnBehalfOf and return a fallback warning.
raise_on_behalf_ofNo(Optional) Jira user identifier for raiseOnBehalfOf. For Server/DC this is typically username or key; for Cloud use the identifier expected by your JSM instance.
request_field_valuesYesJSON string of request field values keyed by field ID. Examples: - Summary and description: {"summary": "Access issue", "description": "Cannot log in"} - Multi-value field: {"customfield_10001": ["alice", "bob"]}
request_participantsNo(Optional) JSON array string or comma-separated list of request participants. Examples: ["user1","user2"] or "user1,user2"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint: true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as potential side effects, permissions, fallback behavior for raise_on_behalf_of, or the meaning of strict_on_behalf. There is no contradiction, but the description is a bare statement that contributes no additional insight.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and target. However, it may be too minimal for the tool's complexity, but within this dimension it is appropriately sized.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema, yet the description provides only a one-line summary. It lacks context about when to use it, how it interacts with JSM, or what happens on failure. The existing schema and annotation help, but the description is insufficient for an agent to choose and invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Create a Jira Service Management customer request' clearly states the verb (create), resource (customer request), and domain (Jira Service Management). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue, which creates a regular Jira issue.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention JSM-specific context, prerequisites (like service desk or request type), or contrast with jira_create_issue. The name implies usage but the description itself is silent.

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/hieptran87/atlassian-mcp-server'

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