Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
namcpgem

Jira MCP

by namcpgem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

create_ticket

Creates a new Jira issue in a specified project with required issue type and summary, plus optional description, assignee, labels, dates, and estimates.

Instructions

Create a new Jira ticket

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoDescription text
labelsNoLabels to assign
projectYesProject key, e.g. GEM
summaryYesIssue title
assigneeNoAssignee username, e.g. username
due_dateNoDue date YYYY-MM-DD
issue_typeYesIssue type name exactly as defined in the project, e.g. Story, Task, Bug, Sub-task, or a custom type like "QA Sub-Task"
parent_keyNoParent ticket key for any sub-task type (Sub-task or a custom one)
start_dateNoStart date YYYY-MM-DD
original_estimateNoTime estimate e.g. "2h"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.9.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / issue_type / description
      Previous value: -"Issue type: Story, Task, Bug, Sub-task"New value: +"Issue type name exactly as defined in the project, e.g. Story, Task, Bug, Sub-task, or a custom type like \"QA Sub-Task\""
    • changedInput schema / properties / parent_key / description
      Previous value: -"Parent ticket key for Sub-task"New value: +"Parent ticket key for any sub-task type (Sub-task or a custom one)"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignee
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Assignee username, e.g. username",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the basic action. It does not mention permission requirements, whether the ticket is created in a default status, how sub-task types require parent_key, or what happens to optional fields left unset.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure to help an agent understand the multi-field creation flow.

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?

This is a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to carry more context than it does. Critical creation behavior, such as the requirement that parent_key be set for any sub-task type and what the tool returns, is absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema with examples (project key 'GEM', issue type names, date format YYYY-MM-DD). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ('Create a new Jira ticket'), which is enough to know it makes a Jira issue. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name create_ticket and adds no differentiation from siblings like update_ticket, transition_ticket, or link_issues.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_ticket or transition_ticket, and no mention of prerequisites like needing an existing project or parent ticket. The agent must infer all of this from the schema alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools