Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

jira_create_remote_issue_link

Add an external remote link to a Jira issue by specifying the issue key, URL, and title, making related resources accessible directly from the issue.

Instructions

Creates a remote link (POST /rest/api/3/issue/{key}/remotelink).

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": {
      "issueIdOrKey": "<issueIdOrKey>",
      "url": "<url>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "jira_create_remote_issue_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
titleYes
issueIdOrKeyYes
relationshipNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a POST/write, but does not mention side effects, permissions, duplicate URL behavior, or failure cases.

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 sentence with no filler and places the core action and endpoint right at the start. It is concise to the point of being under-specified, but structurally efficient.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is insufficient. An agent would need additional context about required fields, relationship semantics, and expected responses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameter. issueIdOrKey, url, title, and relationship are left entirely to inference; the optional relationship parameter has no documented meaning or allowed values.

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 action ('Creates a remote link') and includes the exact REST endpoint, making the resource type clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling jira_create_issue_link, but 'remote link' and the '/remotelink' endpoint are specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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 given about when to use this tool versus jira_create_issue_link, or how it differs from jira_get_remote_issue_links. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely from the tool name and endpoint.

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