jcm_transitionIssueMoves a Jira issue to a new workflow state using a valid transition ID; call getTransitions first to find IDs, then receive ok, key, and transitionId.
Move a Jira issue to a new workflow state. Use jcm_getTransitions first to get valid transition IDs. Returns {ok, key, transitionId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueKey | Yes | Jira issue key, e.g. PROJ-123 | |
| transitionId | Yes | Transition ID from jcm_getTransitions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by stating the return shape ({ok, key, transitionId}), which no output schema provides, though it stops short of saying what side effects a transition triggers (notifications, workflow post-functions, required fields).
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, then the prerequisite, then the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is padding.
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?
For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the action, the prerequisite and the response shape, which is enough to call it correctly. It could add one line on what a failed or partial transition looks like, but the gaps are minor.
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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions plus patterns (issue key format, numeric transition ID). The description's mention of transition IDs sourced from jcm_getTransitions only repeats what the schema's parameter description already says, 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: 'Move a Jira issue to a new workflow state.' That is clearly distinct from the read-only siblings (jcm_getIssue, jcm_getTransitions) and from the field-editing sibling jcm_editIssue, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.
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?
'Use jcm_getTransitions first to get valid transition IDs' names the prerequisite tool and the condition that requires it, which is the single most important routing decision for this call. Nothing about sequencing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.