jira_get_issueRetrieve a single Jira issue by key or numeric ID and return selected fields or expansions, so you can inspect the issue's details directly.
Read one issue by key or numeric ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| issueKey | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that exactly one issue is returned, and says nothing about error behavior for an unknown key or about the shape/verbosity of the returned issue.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant restatement of the title; every word contributes.
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 and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should explain what 'expand' and 'fields' do and roughly what comes back, but it does neither. For a 3-parameter read tool this leaves meaningful gaps.
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 coverage is 0% for 3 parameters, and the description only implies the meaning of issueKey. The 'expand' and 'fields' parameters, which materially change the response, are undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Read one issue') and clarifies the identifier forms (key or numeric ID), which separates it from the sibling jira_search_issues and the mutation tools like jira_update_issue. It stops short of naming an alternative, so a reader must infer the single-vs-list distinction.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus jira_search_issues (lookup by known key) or jira_rest (arbitrary endpoints). The agent has to infer the situation from the purpose line alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.