Skip to main content
Glama
proprock

jira-mini-mcp

by proprock
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_issue

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a specific Jira issue by key with optional field selection, resolving custom field names and available transitions. Excludes comments and attachments to return targeted issue details.

Instructions

Fetch one issue by key. fields replaces the default fields entirely -- default: summary, description, issuetype, status, priority, assignee, reporter, labels, components, created, updated, resolutiondate, issuelinks, project, parent, subtasks. fields=[] returns the key with no fields. Requesting 'watches' or 'votes' resolves the real watcher/voter list (watch_count/is_watching/watchers, vote_count/has_voted/voters) via one extra request per field, instead of Jira's own link-only stub. When fields names any customfield_*, the result adds field_names mapping each returned customfield id to its display name. 'transitions' lists the moves available now (id, name, resulting status), the same names transition_issue accepts. Does not include comments, attachments, or changelog history; use the dedicated tools for those.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNo
issue_keyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "get_issueDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, but the description adds significant behavioral context: fields replacement semantics, default fields, special handling for watches/votes (including an extra request), customfield mapping, and the fact that transitions are returned with status names. This goes well beyond annotations and discloses real behavior.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds value. It opens with the core purpose, then logically explains parameter behavior, and ends with exclusions and sibling routing. Well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (fields behavior, special values, exclusions) and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: return shape (default fields, field_names for customfields, transitions list format), edge cases (fields=[]), and what is not included. It gives an agent everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It thoroughly explains the `fields` parameter: default values, fields=[] behavior, special values for watches/votes, customfield handling, and transitions. The `issue_key` parameter is self-evident from context. The description provides rich semantic detail beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one issue by key.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly listing what it does not include (comments, attachments, changelog) and pointing to dedicated tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says when to use alternatives: 'use the dedicated tools for those' for comments, attachments, changelog. It also explains the transitions field relates to transition_issue, implying when to use this tool to preview transitions. Clear exclusions and alternatives are provided.

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