Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jira Cloud MCP Server

Jira Cloud MCP Server

by pascalhubacher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_version

Create a new version in a Jira project by specifying name, dates, and release settings. Use this to organize issues into planned releases.

Instructions

Create version

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_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesRequest body (JSON object)

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'create' with no information about side effects, required context, permissions, validation, or consequences. This is no more informative than the tool name itself.

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 under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is minimal but fails to communicate anything beyond the name, so it does not earn its place as a useful explanatory sentence.

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?

Given a nested body schema with many properties, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-word description is entirely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what a 'version' is, what response to expect, or how to construct a correct request.

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 no parameter-level meaning. The schema documents 'body' as a request object with many properties, but the description gives no hints about which fields matter or how to construct a valid version.

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 version' is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name 'create_version'. It names the action and resource but adds no detail, and it does not distinguish this operation from sibling create tools like create_component or create_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. No context is provided about prerequisites, when creating a version is appropriate, or how it differs from related project/version operations.

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