Jira Cloud MCP Server

get_comments

Retrieve comments for a specified Jira issue, with options to paginate and order results by creation date.

Instructions

Get comments

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_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expand`	No	Use [expand](#expansion) to include additional information about comments in the response. This parameter accepts `rende
`orderBy`	No	[Order](#ordering) the results by a field. Accepts created to sort comments by their created date.
`startAt`	No	The index of the first item to return in a page of results (page offset).
`maxResults`	No	The maximum number of items to return per page.
`issueIdOrKey`	Yes	The ID or key of the issue.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Get comments' reveals nothing beyond the action itself. It does not mention read-only behavior, ordering, pagination defaults, or any other observable 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 terse, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no front-loaded context, alternatives, or behavioral detail; every meaningful piece of information is missing.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and there are closely related siblings. A two-word description leaves out essential context such as what resource is being queried, how pagination works, and when to choose this over get_comment.

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 documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Get comments', which essentially restates the tool name and adds no new information. It does not specify that comments belong to an issue, nor does it differentiate this plural tool from the sibling 'get_comment'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention issue context, pagination use cases, or how this differs from 'get_comment' or 'add_comment'.

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

Deploy Server