Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Atlassian Server

MCP Atlassian Server

by itay1709
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

jira_add_comment

Add a comment to a Jira issue using its key and the comment body. Keep your team updated with direct feedback on tasks.

Instructions

Add a comment to a Jira issue

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issueKey": "<issueKey>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "jira_add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe content of the comment
issueKeyYesThe key of the issue to comment on

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the comment is visible immediately, permissions required, or if it appends to existing comments). The description is too brief to convey behavioral traits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words, though it is too brief for completeness.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 simple parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., return value, confirmation) and usage guidance. A minimal viable description for this tool would include a note about permissions or format.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. It does not clarify acceptable formats for 'body' (e.g., plain text vs. Jira wiki markup) or constraints on 'issueKey'.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment to a Jira issue'), which clearly distinguishes it from tools like jira_search_issues or jira_create_issue. However, it could be more precise by mentioning it adds a comment to an existing issue, but the context signals and tool name make it clear.

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, such as when updating an issue via jira_update_issue might be more appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist) or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools