Skip to main content
Glama
namcpgem

Jira MCP

by namcpgem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_ticket

Update Jira ticket fields like summary, assignee, priority, due date, labels, and estimates to keep issues accurate without manual UI edits.

Instructions

Update fields of a Jira ticket. Converting between a standard issue type and Sub-task is a Jira REST API limitation — use Jira's UI "Move" action instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelsNoLabels to set
summaryNoReplace ticket summary/title
assigneeNoUsername to assign, or empty string to unassign
due_dateNoDue date YYYY-MM-DD
epic_keyNoEpic ticket key to set as this issue's Epic Link (shows under the Epic's "Issues in Epic" panel, not Linked Issues)
priorityNoPriority name, e.g. "High", "Medium", "Low"
ticket_idYesJira issue key, e.g. GEM-234
issue_typeNoIssue type: Story, Task, Bug, Sub-task
parent_keyNoParent ticket key for Sub-task
start_dateNoStart date YYYY-MM-DD
descriptionNoReplace full description
original_estimateNoTime estimate e.g. "2h", "1d 4h"
implementation_notesNoAppend implementation notes to description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / epic_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Epic ticket key to set as this issue's Epic Link (shows under the Epic's \"Issues in Epic\" panel, not Linked Issues)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / priority
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Priority name, e.g. \"High\", \"Medium\", \"Low\"",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one meaningful behavioral trait: the REST API limitation around Sub-task conversion and the recommended workaround. It says nothing about permissions, whether unspecified fields are left untouched, or other side effects of an update.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most valuable caveat. No filler or restatement of the title, though it is arguably too terse for a 13-parameter mutation tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place behavioral context could live, and it covers only the Sub-task caveat. For a 13-param mutation tool the coverage is thin, though the exhaustive schema mitigates the parameter side.

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 13 parameters is already documented in the schema (formats like YYYY-MM-DD, empty string to unassign, epic_key semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Update fields of a Jira ticket"), so the agent immediately knows this is a mutating tool for existing issues. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like transition_ticket, but the scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives one concrete exclusion — issue-type conversion between standard and Sub-task must be done via Jira's UI — which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to reach for this versus transition_ticket (status changes) or add_comment, which is the most likely sibling confusion for a ticket-mutation tool.

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