Jira Cloud MCP Server

bulk_fetch_issues

Fetch multiple Jira issues at once by ID or key, selecting only the fields, properties, and expand values you need to streamline data retrieval.

Instructions

Bulk fetch issues

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_fetch_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	A JSON object containing the information about which issues and fields to fetch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention response format, error behavior, handling of missing issues, rate limits, or any other important runtime behavior.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no additional structure or useful detail beyond what the tool name already communicates.

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?

The tool has a nested body schema, optional controls, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should provide more operational context. It neither explains return values nor clarifies the purpose of the optional parameters, leaving an agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter detail, though the body description does say the object contains information about which issues and fields to fetch. Optional parameters like expand, fields, properties, and fieldsByKeys remain semantically unexplained.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('fetch issues'), and 'bulk' weakly distinguishes it from single-issue tools like get_issue. However, it is almost a restatement of the tool name and does not clarify what 'bulk' means, what issue identifiers are accepted, or what distinguishes this from search-based issue retrieval.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_issue or JQL search tools. The schema implies issueIdsOrKeys, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or reasons to prefer this tool.

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

Deploy Server