Add a comment to a Jira issue by providing the site, account email, API token, issue key, and comment text.
Add a comment to a Jira issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Comment text | |
| site | Yes | Jira site (e.g. mycompany) | |
| Yes | Atlassian account email | ||
| api_token | Yes | Atlassian API token | |
| issue_key | Yes | Issue key (e.g. ENG-123) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only implies a write operation and omits permissions, authentication expectations, side effects, and rate limits.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple add-comment action.
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?
The tool is simple and all five required parameters are fully described in the schema. However, the description remains minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations or usage context.
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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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: add a comment to a Jira issue. It is easily distinguished from sibling Jira tools such as jira_create_issue, jira_get_issue, and jira_search_issues.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not explain when adding a comment is appropriate versus using another Jira tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.