Attach a remote link, such as a Confluence page, to a Jira issue by providing its key, URL, and title. Link related resources directly to issues for better context.
Attach a remote link (e.g. a Confluence page) to an issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | issue key, e.g. PROJ-123 | |
| url | Yes | target URL | |
| title | Yes | link text shown on the issue | |
| relationship | No | e.g. "is documented by" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, which merely confirms this is a write. The description adds no behavioral context: no permission requirements, no note on whether the link is idempotent or what happens on duplicate URLs, no return information. For a mutation tool this is thin.
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?
A single compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the parenthetical example is the only extra content.
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 four-parameter, no-output-schema tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential action but omits any usage context or behavioral notes. It is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 four parameters (key, url, title, relationship) are already documented in the schema, including the issue-key pattern and the example relationship string. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?
Specific verb ('Attach') plus resource ('remote link') and a concrete example (Confluence page) that disambiguates from jira_link_issues, which handles issue-to-issue links. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to the agent's inference rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as jira_link_issues (internal links) or jira_get_remote_links (read side). The agent must infer the use case purely from the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.