Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jira Cloud MCP Server

Jira Cloud MCP Server

by pascalhubacher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_project_versions

Retrieve project versions for a specified Jira project ID or key to support release planning and tracking.

Instructions

Get project versions

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_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expandNoUse [expand](#expansion) to include additional information in the response. This parameter accepts `operations`, which r
projectIdOrKeyYesThe project ID or project key (case sensitive).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state return format, pagination, permissions, or side effects; the fact that it is a 'get' operation is implied by the verb but not explicit.

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 text is very concise, one sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified: it lacks any structuring elements like scope or caveats, so the brevity is more a sign of missing content than effective conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, an agent lacks essential context about what a 'project version' is, what the response looks like, or when to call this tool. The parameter schema is complete, but the tool-level description is insufficient for confident invocation.

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%, with descriptions for both expand and projectIdOrKey. The description adds no parameter detail, but with the schema already documenting the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get project versions' essentially restates the tool name without clarifying what 'versions' means in a Jira context (e.g., releases, milestones). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_project or create_version.

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. No mention of situations where project versions are needed, or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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