Jira Cloud MCP Server

add_watcher

Add a user as a watcher to a Jira issue using the issue key and account ID to receive updates and track progress.

Instructions

Add watcher

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_watcher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	The account ID of the user. Note that username cannot be used due to privacy changes.
`issueIdOrKey`	Yes	The ID or key of the issue.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and says nothing about permission requirements, duplicate watcher handling, whether existing watchers are overwritten, or what happens on failure.

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 this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no contextual structure or front-loaded details that help the agent understand the operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify scope, effects, and usage context. 'Add watcher' is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, especially given the large set of sibling tools.

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%, with both 'body' and 'issueIdOrKey' already documented. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 watcher' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'add_watcher', making it essentially tautological. It identifies the general action and resource but does not specify the target (e.g., an issue) or differentiate itself meaningfully from related tools beyond the obvious.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of remove_watcher, get_issue_watchers, or add_vote, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server