MCP Atlassian Server

jira_get_issue

Retrieve a specific Jira issue by key with optional field, comment, or changelog expansion.

Instructions

Get a specific Jira issue by key

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>"
    },
    "name": "jira_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expand`	No	List of properties to expand (e.g., changelog, comments)
`fields`	No	List of fields to include in the response
`issueKey`	Yes	The key of the issue to retrieve (e.g., PROJ-123)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only in name ('Get'), but fails to explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens if the issue does not exist. The lack of any safety or side-effect information limits transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns a high score for efficiency, though a small addition (e.g., 'This is a read-only operation') would not detract from conciseness.

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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the typical response structure (e.g., issue fields, metadata) or note any limitations (e.g., pagination). The current description covers only the input identifier, leaving the agent without guidance on what to expect from the result.

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% for all three parameters, so each parameter already has adequate inline documentation. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'specific Jira issue', and the identifier method 'by key'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_search_issues (searching) and jira_create_issue (creating), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 such as jira_search_issues or jira_get_projects. An agent would not know that this tool is appropriate only when the issue key is known, nor does it explain what to do if the key is invalid.

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

Deploy Server