Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jira Cloud MCP Server

Jira Cloud MCP Server

by pascalhubacher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_change_logs

Retrieve the change history for a Jira issue to audit modifications and see what changed. Pass the issue ID or key to get paginated logs.

Instructions

Get changelogs

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_change_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
startAtNoThe index of the first item to return in a page of results (page offset).
maxResultsNoThe maximum number of items to return per page.
issueIdOrKeyYesThe ID or key of the issue.

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?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action 'get' with no mention of what happens, what is returned, pagination behavior, ordering, or any side effects. This is a complete absence of behavioral information.

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. Two words provide no meaningful structure or front-loaded context for the agent.

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?

The description is inadequate for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. It leaves the agent unsure whether changelogs are for the issue specified by issueIdOrKey, how pagination works, or how this tool differs from get_change_logs_by_ids.

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 schema already fully documents issueIdOrKey, startAt, and maxResults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Get changelogs' is a direct paraphrase of the tool name and adds no new information. It fails to specify that these are issue changelogs or to distinguish this tool from the sibling get_change_logs_by_ids.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_change_logs_by_ids. The description offers no context about scope, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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