Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
JIRA MCP Server

JIRA MCP Server

by klapro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

transition_issue

Move a JIRA issue to a new status by applying a specified workflow transition and adding an optional comment.

Instructions

Change the status of a JIRA issue by performing a transition

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>",
      "transitionId": "<transitionId>"
    },
    "name": "transition_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentNoOptional comment to add with the transition
issueKeyYesThe key of the issue to transition
transitionIdYesThe ID of the transition to perform

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description only says 'change the status' with no details on side effects, permissions, or required knowledge of transition IDs. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no redundancy, but too brief to be informative. Sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of how to obtain transition IDs or what happens after transition. Incomplete for effective agent use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions; the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'change' and resource 'status of a JIRA issue', but uses the jargon 'transition' which may not be clear to all users. It distinguishes from general 'update_issue' but could be more specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_transitions' or 'update_issue'. The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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