Apply a Jira workflow transition to move an issue to a new status; pass the issue key and transition ID, with optional fields.
Apply a workflow transition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | issue key, e.g. PROJ-123 | |
| fields | No | Field object. Keys may be field ids or business aliases; get the value shape from jira_describe_create / jira_describe_edit first | |
| transitionId | Yes | transition id, from jira_get_transitions for this issue |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds no further behavioral context, such as what the transition changes, whether fields are required for certain transitions, or any side effects. It merely restates the action without disclosing anything beyond the annotation.
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?
The single phrase is extremely terse and under-specified for a tool that mutates an issue and accepts an optional nested fields object. It is not appropriately sized because it omits necessary context rather than being efficiently concise.
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?
Given the complexity of a write operation with a nested fields parameter and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It leaves the agent without guidance on usage, prerequisites, or behavioral expectations, relying entirely on the schema and tool name.
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 three parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline when the schema carries the burden.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('apply a workflow transition'), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no distinguishing detail about scope or effect. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling jira_get_transitions.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as obtaining a transition ID from jira_get_transitions. The description gives no context for when a transition should be applied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.