Retrieve all custom and system fields available in Jira Cloud to identify issue metadata and structure for queries and updates.
Get fields
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_fields"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided and the description only says 'Get fields.' It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and provides none.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single two-word phrase is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks the content needed to be useful, so it does not earn high marks for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and an empty parameter schema, the description is the only source of information. 'Get fields' does not specify the domain (which fields), expected output, or relationship to sibling tools. The tool may be simple, but the description is inadequate for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description's lack of parameter information is acceptable since no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get fields' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify which fields (issue fields, custom fields, project fields) or provide any resource context, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_statuses or get_priorities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving an agent unable to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.