Jira Cloud MCP Server

get_project_components

Retrieves the list of components for a specified Jira project using its ID or key, with optional source filtering.

Instructions

Get project components

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": {
      "projectIdOrKey": "<projectIdOrKey>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectIdOrKey`	Yes	The project ID or project key (case sensitive).
`componentSource`	No	The source of the components to return. Can be `jira` (default), `compass` or `auto`. When `auto` is specified, the API	jira

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Get', implying read-only retrieval, but it does not mention auth needs, pagination, behavior differences between component sources, or what happens when the project has no components.

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 very short but not usefully concise: it essentially restates the tool name and provides no additional context. The single sentence does not earn its place beyond what the name already communicates.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what a 'project component' is and what the response looks like. It does neither, and it leaves the meaning of compass/auto sources unexplained despite the truncated schema hint.

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 parameter docs already carry the semantic weight. The tool description adds nothing about projectIdOrKey or componentSource, but it is not required to duplicate the schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get project components.' Though it repeats the tool name almost exactly, it identifies a distinct resource and can be visually separated from sibling tools like get_project, get_project_versions, or create_component.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_versions or create_component. It also does not explain when to choose jira vs compass vs auto for the componentSource parameter.

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

Deploy Server