Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Context Bridge

Context Bridge

by jusspound-netizen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_jira_ticket

Retrieves a Jira ticket by ticket ID using the Jira REST API to access issue details for tracking or debugging.

Instructions

Retrieves a Jira ticket based on a ticket ID using the Jira REST API.

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": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_jira_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ticket_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether the call is read-only (implied but not stated), what happens on an unknown ticket ID, whether rate limits apply, or whether it returns full or partial ticket data. Naming the REST API is the only behavioral hint.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance rather than a virtue.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, which lowers the bar considerably. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should have included the ticket ID format and read-only/error behavior for an agent to call it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% — the single parameter "ticket_id" has no description in the schema. The description only says a "ticket ID" is required, adding no format, validation, or example detail to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ("Retrieves a Jira ticket") plus the mechanism (Jira REST API), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_github_actions_runs or get_sentry_issues, though the resource names are distinct enough to imply separation.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites such as Jira authentication, permissions, or whether the ticket ID must be in a specific format (e.g., PROJ-123). The description states what it does but leaves all usage decisions to inference.

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