Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

jira_edit_issue

Update a Jira issue by providing its key and specifying field values or update operations to modify details.

Instructions

Updates an issue (PUT /rest/api/3/issue/{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": {
      "issueIdOrKey": "<issueIdOrKey>"
    },
    "name": "jira_edit_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNo
updateNo
issueIdOrKeyYes

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutating operation via PUT, but does not mention permissions, whether the update is partial or full replacement, irreversibility, error behavior, or what the response contains.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, so it earns a high conciseness score but not a perfect one.

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 no annotations, no output schema, nested objects in the schema, and a large set of Jira sibling tools, this description is far from complete. It does not explain the semantics of fields versus update, what a successful update returns, or how this differs from other issue-modifying tools.

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 provides no parameter semantics. The fields and update objects are dynamic and opaque in the schema, and the description does not explain their roles or how issueIdOrKey maps to the {key} path parameter.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Updates an issue' and gives the exact endpoint PUT /rest/api/3/issue/{key}. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue or jira_transition_issue, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_transition_issue, jira_add_comment, or jira_create_issue. The description only states what it does, not the conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for using it.

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