Jira Cloud MCP Server

remove_watcher

Remove a user's watch on a Jira issue by providing the issue key and user's account ID, stopping their notifications for that issue.

Instructions

Delete watcher

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": "remove_watcher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`username`	No	This parameter is no longer available. See the [deprecation notice](https://developer.atlassian.com/cloud/jira/platform/
`accountId`	No	The account ID of the user, which uniquely identifies the user across all Atlassian products. For example, *5b10ac8d82e0
`issueIdOrKey`	Yes	The ID or key of the issue.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must communicate behavioral traits. The verb "Delete" implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, idempotence, or the expected response on success.

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 concise and contains no filler, but it is almost a restatement of the tool name and is too terse to convey the necessary context. It is not bloated, yet it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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 and no annotations, the definition relies entirely on this brief description and the parameter schema. It omits the issue scope implied by issueIdOrKey, any usage context, and what happens after removal, making the tool definition incomplete 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%, and the schema clearly documents issueIdOrKey, accountId, and the deprecation of username. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already covers this dimension adequately.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Delete watcher" states a clear action and object, and the verb loosely distinguishes it from add_watcher and get_issue_watchers. However, it does not specify that the watcher is removed from an issue and adds almost no information beyond the tool name itself.

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 about when to use remove_watcher instead of add_watcher or get_issue_watchers. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or the deprecated username parameter.

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

Deploy Server