Jira Cloud MCP Server

submit_bulk_transition

Bulk transition multiple Jira issues to a new status by submitting a request body with issue identifiers and optional notification settings.

Instructions

Bulk transition issue statuses

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": "submit_bulk_transition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	The request body containing the issues to be transitioned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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. 'Bulk transition' only conveys a status change; it does not disclose side effects like notifications, permission requirements, batch atomicity, or reversibility — a significant omission for a bulk write operation.

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 only four words, contains no fluff, and front-loads the core action. It loses a point because it is a terse fragment rather than a structured statement and omits qualifiers that would materially help the agent.

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?

For a bulk side-effecting operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse: an agent cannot determine how to express a transition (issue keys? transition IDs? notification settings?) or what the result will be. The schema provides structure, but the description does not fill the remaining gaps.

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 high since the body parameter already has a description about containing issues to be transitioned, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about what each string in bulkTransitionInputs represents or how sendBulkNotification behaves.

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 operation — bulk transition — and identifies the resource being affected (issue statuses), which distinguishes it from sibling bulk move/delete/edit tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular do_transition or mention the target statuses, so it stops just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Use for bulk status transitions is implied by the word 'bulk', which weakly separates it from the singular do_transition sibling. However, there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to get_transitions/do_transition.

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

Deploy Server