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

jira-lite-mcp

by pilloom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

jira_get_worklog

Retrieve worklogs for a Jira issue including original estimate, total spent, and each log's author, duration, date, description, and ID.

Instructions

Devuelve el tiempo registrado en un issue de Jira: la estimación original, el total dedicado y cada registro con su autor, duración, fecha y descripción. Incluye el identificador de cada registro, necesario para eliminarlo.

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_worklog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesClave del issue. Ejemplo: ATY-123

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (estimate, total, each worklog with details) and notes the ID is needed for deletion. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or if the operation is read-only (likely safe).

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 concise with two well-structured sentences, front-loading the main purpose. A minor improvement could be clarifying the return of total spent vs. original estimate more succinctly.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (original estimate, total spent, each worklog with author, duration, date, description). It is complete for a single-parameter read tool with low complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'issueKey', and the description adds an example ('ATY-123') but no additional meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that it returns time registered on a Jira issue, including original estimate, total spent, and each worklog with author, duration, date, and description. It also distinguishes from siblings like jira_add_worklog and jira_delete by mentioning the worklog ID necessary for deletion.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a use case (getting worklogs for review or deletion) but provides no when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with other tools.

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