jcm_createIssueCreate a new Jira issue and return its key and URL; pass a parent key to create sub-tasks.
Create a new Jira issue. Returns {key, url}. For sub-tasks, pass parentKey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | Issue summary/title | |
| issueType | Yes | Issue type name, e.g. Task, Bug, Story | |
| parentKey | No | Parent issue key for sub-tasks, e.g. PROJ-1 | |
| projectKey | Yes | Project key, e.g. PROJ | |
| description | No | Description (supports markdown formatting) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds value annotations cannot: the return shape {key, url}, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits permission requirements and side effects such as notifications.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by return value and then the one conditional hint. Nothing is redundant and every sentence earns its place.
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?
Return value is stated despite having no output schema, and the sub-task case is covered, which an agent needs to invoke correctly given the three required parameters. Minor gaps remain around permissions and whether creating an issue triggers notifications or workflow validation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the parentKey sub-task example. The description's parentKey note restates schema content rather than adding format or validation detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Jira issue') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like jcm_editIssue, jcm_getIssue, and jcm_createVersion. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the nearest alternative, but the verb makes the operation unambiguous.
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 only usage guidance is 'For sub-tasks, pass parentKey,' which is conditional invocation advice for one parameter. There is no guidance on when to use this versus jcm_editIssue or jcm_convertIssueType, nor any note on prerequisites such as required project permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.