Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jira Cloud MCP Server

Jira Cloud MCP Server

by pascalhubacher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

add_attachment

Attach files to any Jira issue using its ID or key. Provide the attachment body in JSON to complete the action.

Instructions

Add attachment

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": {
      "issueIdOrKey": "<issueIdOrKey>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "add_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesRequest body (JSON object)
issueIdOrKeyYesThe ID or key of the issue that attachments are added to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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, but it only says 'Add attachment.' It does not mention that this is a write operation, what side effects occur, whether authentication or permissions are needed, or any constraints around attachment content or size.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but it earns no place because it merely repeats the tool name. This is under-specification rather than concise helpful writing.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and even the schema leave critical gaps: the body is only described as 'Request body (JSON object)' with generic object items, and there is no indication of required attachment payload structure or how the endpoint behaves. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly from this definition.

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 documents issueIdOrKey and body. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which keeps this at the baseline.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Add attachment' restates the tool name almost verbatim and adds no scope. It names a verb and resource, so it minimally separates add_attachment from get_attachment, but it does not clarify what kind of attachment, where it is added, or how it is supplied.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_comment, add_worklog, or get_attachment. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals to help an agent choose it correctly.

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