Jira Cloud MCP Server

add_comment

Add a comment to a Jira issue by providing its ID or key and the comment body.

Instructions

Add comment

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_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Request body (JSON object)
`expand`	No	Use [expand](#expansion) to include additional information about comments in the response. This parameter accepts `rende
`issueIdOrKey`	Yes	The ID or key of the issue.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosureand two words carry none of it. It never mentions that this is a mutating operation on an issue, whether it is reversible, whether permissions are required, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two words is underspecification, not conciseness. There is no front-loaded key constraint and no explanatory structure; every useful fact an agent needs is absent.

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 mutating tool with a nested request object, required issueIdOrKey, no output schema, and many comment-related siblings, this description is severely incomplete. It omits the target resource, behavior, and response information entirely.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds nothing about parameters. However, the body parameter's schema is misleading for a request object—it lists response-style fields like id, author, created, and self—and its description 'Request body (JSON object)' is unhelpful; the tool description does nothing to clarify the expected payload.

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 comment' restates the tool name with no additional information. It supplies a verb and resource but never names the target (an issue), and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like update_comment, delete_comment, or get_comments.

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 provided at all. The description gives no context for when to choose add_comment over update_comment, delete_comment, or get_comments, and states no conditions 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