mcp-jira-confluence-corp

by mshegolev

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

jira_add_comment

Add a comment to any Jira issue by providing its key and a comment body (Jira wiki markup).

Instructions

Add a comment to a Jira issue.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "jira_add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description merely restates the action, adding no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention that comments are appended, required permissions, or behavior on duplicate comments. The description fails to add value.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence. It is concise with no wasted words, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

With only one sentence, the description is inadequate given the tool's complexity. It lacks context on return value (despite having an output schema), error cases, or integration with Jira semantics. Annotations and schema partially cover but the description should complement them.

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?

The tool description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already describes issue_key and comment with their formats and constraints. The description does not explain parameter purpose, syntax, or relationships.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Add a comment to a Jira issue' clearly states the action and resource, using a specific verb ('Add') and object ('comment to a Jira issue'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_issue_comments (read) and jira_create_issue (create issue).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to add a comment versus updating an issue, or prerequisites like issue existence. The description lacks usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.