Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
namcpgem

Jira MCP

by namcpgem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_ticket

Modify fields on a Jira ticket—summary, assignee, priority, dates, labels, description, estimates, Epic Link, or parent—via the Jira MCP API. Change issue types only with Jira UI Move.

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

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 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
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. 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 changedv2.6.0
    • 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"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / priority
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Priority name, e.g. \"High\", \"Medium\", \"Low\"",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the issue-type conversion limitation, but omits important mutation details such as whether omitted fields remain unchanged, permission requirements, reversibility, and what the tool returns.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before the important limitation. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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?

The schema is richly described and covers all parameters, and the description adds a key non-obvious limitation. However, for a 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves significant behavioral context unstated, including partial-update semantics and response behavior.

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 the schema already explains all 13 parameters in detail. The description adds a useful caveat about issue_type conversion, but otherwise does not supplement parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Update fields of a Jira ticket.' It is specific enough to distinguish from create_ticket and get_ticket, but it does not explicitly separate field updates from transition_ticket or update_comment.

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 useful exclusion and alternative: converting between standard issue types and Sub-tasks should be done via Jira's UI 'Move' action. However, it does not provide broader guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as transition_ticket for status changes.

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