Jira Cloud MCP Server

create_issue

Create a Jira issue by sending a request body with fields, updates, and transitions. Add issues to projects and manage workflow states directly.

Instructions

Create issue

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": "create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Request body (JSON object)
`updateHistory`	No	Whether the project in which the issue is created is added to the user's Recently viewed project list, as shown unde

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 provided and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, required fields, permissions, or result handling. The description carries almost no information beyond the tool name.

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 under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A two-word description is not sufficient for a nested-parameter creation operation and leaves nearly all meaning to the schema.

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 tool with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to construct a valid issue body, what the API expects, or what success looks like.

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. However, the schema descriptions are weak: body is only described as 'Request body (JSON object)' and updateHistory's description is truncated. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 'Create issue' simply restates the tool name and provides a generic verb+resource pair. It does not explain what kind of issue, what system is involved, or how this differs from create_issues or edit_issue.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_issues, submit_bulk_create, or edit_issue. No conditions, exclusions, or prefered scenarios are given.

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

Deploy Server