jira-mcp

jira_list_plugins

Read-only

List installed Jira UPM plugins when the account can read the plugins REST endpoint. If UPM is unavailable, infer plugin keys from custom field schemas and report why each path failed.

Instructions

List installed UPM plugins when the account may read /rest/plugins/1.0. If UPM is unavailable, falls back to inferring plugin keys from custom field schemas and reports why each UPM path failed

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	what to do when the list is empty or inferred
`plugins`	Yes	installed plugins; empty when UPM refuses or is absent
`attempts`	No	per-path outcomes when UPM was tried
`pluginInventory`	No	"ok", or why the UPM list is unavailable
`inferredFromFields`	No	plugins inferred from custom field schemas when UPM is unavailable

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.5Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses a non-obvious fallback path (inferring plugin keys from custom field schemas) and that it reports why each UPM path failed, which is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise not anticipate.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the fallback appended. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the description covers both the happy path and the fallback. It is essentially complete for a parameterless read-only tool, with only minor room for stating the response shape's implications for the inferred-fallback case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, and schema coverage is complete. The baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameters to document and the description sensibly omits parameter discussion.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("installed UPM plugins"), and no sibling tool overlaps this capability, so it is trivially distinguishable from the issue/project/board/test-suite tools around it. An agent knows immediately what the tool returns.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description names the precondition (account may read /rest/plugins/1.0) and the fallback condition (UPM unavailable). It gives clear context for when the tool works, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative because none exists among the siblings.

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

Deploy Server