Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jira-lite-mcp

jira-lite-mcp

by pilloom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

jira_get_issue

Retrieves a Jira issue by key with details like title, type, status, priority, assignee, labels, dates, estimates, time spent, description, and web link. Supports requesting additional fields by name.

Instructions

Obtiene un issue de Jira por su clave: título, tipo, estado, prioridad, responsable, issue padre, etiquetas, fechas, estimación y tiempo dedicado, descripción y enlace web. Admite pedir campos adicionales por su nombre. Para subtareas, enlaces y comentarios, usar jira_explain_issue.

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": {
      "issueKey": "<issueKey>"
    },
    "name": "jira_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoCampos adicionales a incluir, por su nombre visible. Ejemplo: ["Team", "Criterios de aceptación"]
issueKeyYesClave del issue de Jira

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what fields are returned, but lacks details on read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two efficient sentences with no waste. First sentence states function and return content; second provides sibling guidance. Well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple retrieval tool with good parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential purpose, returned data, and usage context. Slight gaps in error handling or full behavior, but largely complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described. The description adds value by explaining the 'fields' parameter's purpose with an example, going beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a Jira issue by key, enumerating the fields returned (title, type, status, etc.), and distinguishes from jira_explain_issue for subtasks, links, and comments.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (single issue retrieval) and when to use the sibling jira_explain_issue for subtasks, links, and comments, providing clear context for selection.

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