Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jira Cloud MCP Server

Jira Cloud MCP Server

by pascalhubacher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_issue_watchers

Retrieve the list of watchers for a Jira issue by providing its ID or key to monitor who is following updates and involvement.

Instructions

Get issue watchers

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_issue_watchers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdOrKeyYesThe ID or key of the issue.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It only confirms the operation is a retrieval ('Get') but does not mention return format, pagination, permissions, or failure modes, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it adds little beyond the tool name and is under-specified; a middle score is appropriate for conciseness without substantive content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one fully-described parameter, but there is no output schema or annotation coverage. The description fails to hint at the return structure (e.g., a list of watchers), leaving a modest gap for an agent expecting to handle the result.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter (issueIdOrKey with description), so the description adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies because schema description coverage is 100%.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Get') and target ('issue watchers'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_watcher/remove_watcher, but the resource is unambiguous enough for basic selection.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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