Jira Cloud MCP Server

search_and_reconsile_issues_using_jql_post

Finds Jira issues matching a JQL query via POST, with optional reconciliation of specific issue IDs to ensure accurate results.

Instructions

Search for issues using JQL enhanced search (POST)

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "search_and_reconsile_issues_using_jql_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Request body (JSON object)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a read-only search but does not explicitly state that issues are not modified, does not mention pagination ('nextPageToken'), and fails to explain the 'reconcileIssues' behavior suggested by the tool name.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, but the vague 'enhanced search' and the missing reconcile aspect keep it from being fully effective.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with a nested request body, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is severely inadequate. It omits how the body should be structured, what results look like, how pagination works, and the purpose of the 'reconcileIssues' array.

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% at the top level, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a hint that 'jql' is a JQL query, but the nested body fields such as 'reconcileIssues', 'nextPageToken', and 'fieldsByKeys' remain unexplained in both the description and the schema, so no added meaning is provided beyond the baseline.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Search') and resource ('issues') with JQL, and the POST method is stated. However, the tool name references 'reconsile_issues' which is absent from the description, and the phrase 'enhanced search' is vague, so it does not fully distinguish itself from sibling search tools.

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 about when to use this tool over alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer suitability 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