Jira Cloud MCP Server

get_comment

Retrieve a specific comment from a Jira issue using its ID and the issue key. Optionally include expanded details in the response.

Instructions

Get comment

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>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The ID of the comment.
`expand`	No	Use [expand](#expansion) to include additional information about comments in the response. This parameter accepts `rende
`issueIdOrKey`	Yes	The ID or key of the issue.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get comment'. It does not confirm read-only behavior, mention permissions, or explain the effect of the expand parameter. Minimal insight beyond the 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 only two words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is front-loaded, but it omits essential context and does not earn its place as a useful description.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to retrieve a comment, what the response looks like, or how this differs from get_comments or get_issue. An agent would struggle to choose this tool correctly from the large sibling list.

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. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description neither helps nor hurts.

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 is essentially a tautology: 'Get comment' merely restates the tool name without specifying what a comment is, what resource it operates on, or how it differs from get_comments. It provides a verb and resource but no distinguishing detail.

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 like get_comments, update_comment, or delete_comment. No context is given about required issue context or relationship to sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server