Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jira-dev-mcp

jira-dev-mcp

by nianyi778
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

jira_search_issues

Search Jira issues using keywords or JQL. Returns issue keys, summaries, statuses, and assignees for quick project insights.

Instructions

Search Jira issues using natural language keywords or raw JQL. Returns issue keys, summaries, statuses, and assignees.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "jira_search_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query (keywords or JQL)
startAtNoPagination offset (default 0)
maxResultsNoMax results to return (1-50, default 10)
response_formatNoOutput format (default json)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.5

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return fields (keys, summaries, statuses, assignees), which is helpful, but does not mention read-only nature, error handling, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return information. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has 4 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema. The description covers the main search behavior and return fields, which is sufficient for basic usage. It could mention pagination or output format handling, but the schema already provides these details, so the description is complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; 'natural language keywords or raw JQL' duplicates the schema's query description. The other parameters (startAt, maxResults, response_format) are fully described in the schema and not expanded in the description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states 'Search Jira issues using natural language keywords or raw JQL' with a specific verb and resource, and lists return fields (keys, summaries, statuses, assignees). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_read_task and jira_my_tasks, which focus on retrieving specific tasks rather than searching.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for searching issues with keywords or JQL. It implies the agent should use this for flexible search scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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