MCP Atlassian Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error handling, or what format/search capabilities JQL provides. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place by specifying what, where, and how.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain what the search returns (issue objects, summaries, or full details), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns complex Jira issue data, more context about output format would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions JQL but doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained JQL syntax or field selection patterns.

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

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

The description 'Search Jira issues using JQL' clearly states the action (search), resource (Jira issues), and method (JQL). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'confluence_search' by specifying Jira issues rather than Confluence content. However, it doesn't specify what kind of search results are returned or the scope beyond 'issues'.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'confluence_search' tool or any other Jira tools that might exist. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic function.

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