Skip to main content
Glama
namcpgem

Jira MCP

by namcpgem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_ticket

Retrieve full details of a Jira issue by its key, optionally including comments, worklogs, and image attachments for analysis.

Instructions

Get full details of a Jira ticket by its key

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ticket_idYesJira issue key, e.g. GEM-234
image_limitNoMax images to return with include_images (default 5, max 20); the total size cap still applies
include_imagesNoReturn image attachments (screenshots referenced as !name.png! in the description/comments) as viewable images (default false)
include_commentsNoInclude the ticket's comments (default false)
include_worklogsNoInclude the ticket's worklogs with their IDs (default false, one extra request)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_worklogs
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Include the ticket's worklogs with their IDs (default false, one extra request)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / image_limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max images to return with include_images (default 5, max 20); the total size cap still applies",
+  "maximum": 20,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_images
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return image attachments (screenshots referenced as !name.png! in the description/comments) as viewable images (default false)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_comments
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Include the ticket's comments (default false)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does almost none of it. It says 'full details' without clarifying that comments, worklogs, and images are excluded by default and cost extra requests, nor does it state that the operation is a safe read. 'Full details' is if anything slightly misleading given the default-excluded sections.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the required key is prioritized. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why the behavioral gaps exist.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a five-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is barely minimum viable. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but nothing signals that optional sections (comments, worklogs, images) are off by default, which an agent should know before assuming it has complete ticket content.

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% with all five parameters documented in the schema, including defaults for include_comments, include_worklogs, include_images, and image_limit. The description adds only the emphasis on the required key, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a Jira ticket') and pins the lookup key ('by its key'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the read-oriented sibling search_tickets, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 on when to use this versus search_tickets (bulk/query retrieval) or how it relates to the update_* siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is the single-ticket fetch, with no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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