Jira Cloud MCP Server

edit_issue

Update Jira issue fields, transitions, and metadata directly from AI workflows. Fix errors or change status without leaving your assistant.

Instructions

Edit 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": {
      "issueIdOrKey": "<issueIdOrKey>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "edit_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Request body (JSON object)
`expand`	No	The Get issue API expand parameter to use in the response if the `returnIssue` parameter is `true`.
`notifyUsers`	No	Whether a notification email about the issue update is sent to all watchers. To disable the notification, administer Jir
`returnIssue`	No	Whether the response should contain the issue with fields edited in this request. The returned issue will have the same
`issueIdOrKey`	Yes	The ID or key of the issue.
`overrideEditableFlag`	No	Whether screen security is overridden to enable uneditable fields to be edited. Available to Connect and Forge app users
`overrideScreenSecurity`	No	Whether screen security is overridden to enable hidden fields to be edited. Available to Connect and Forge app users wit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

D1.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing beyond the fact that an edit occurs. It fails to mention notification behavior, screen security overrides, whether the issue is returned, or any side effects, making it nearly useless for predicting tool 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. 'Edit issue' earns no space because it merely repeats the tool name without conveying any useful, non-redundant information.

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?

This is a complex tool with seven parameters, a nested request body, and many related sibling tools, yet the description provides no context about how to structure an edit, what the response contains, or how this differs from other issue-modification tools. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this even more inadequate.

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 of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the input schema already documents all seven parameters, including the nested body object, issueIdOrKey, expand, notifyUsers, returnIssue, and override flags.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description 'Edit issue' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding any information about what editing an issue entails. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like do_transition, assign_issue, or submit_bulk_edit, which also modify issues in some way.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. The description does not mention that it edits fields, applies transitions, or when to prefer do_transition or submit_bulk_edit instead, leaving the agent without routing information.

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

Deploy Server