mcp-jira-confluence-corp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jira_transition_issue

Transition a Jira issue to a new status by providing the transition name, such as 'In Progress' or 'Done'. Optionally add a comment.

Instructions

Move a Jira issue through its workflow by transition name.

Transition names are case-insensitive. If the name doesn't match an available transition, the error message will list the valid options.

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_transition_issue"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that transition names are case-insensitive and that an error will list valid options, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main functionality and error handling, though it could mention prerequisite steps like checking current workflow status.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (issue_key, transition_name, comment), so the description adds minimal new meaning. It only reinforces case-insensitivity for transition_name, which is already in the schema.

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 clearly states 'Move a Jira issue through its workflow by transition name,' specifying the verb (Move), resource (Jira issue), and method (by transition name). It distinguishes from siblings like jira_get_issue_transitions (which lists transitions) and jira_update_issue (which updates fields).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using jira_get_issue_transitions first to get valid transition names. It only mentions error handling when the name doesn't match, missing clear usage guidance.

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