Skip to main content
Glama
proprock

jira-mini-mcp

by proprock
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_issue

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a Jira issue's fields: summary, description, assignee, labels, components, priority, due date, parent, and custom fields. Use to modify details; null clears assignee, description, priority, parent, or duedate.

Instructions

Set issue fields, taking the same values get_issue returns: summary as text, description as Markdown, assignee as an account id, an email, a display name, or the literal "me" (an ambiguous name is an error listing the candidates), labels as a list, components and priority by name, duedate as YYYY-MM-DD, parent as an issue key, and any customfield_* or unknown field as raw Jira JSON. null clears assignee, description, priority, parent, or duedate. labels and components REPLACE the whole list, so read the issue first if you mean to add one. Cannot change status (use transition_issue) or add a comment (use add_comment).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYes
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": "update_issueDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: null clears certain fields, labels and components are replaced in total, ambiguous assignee names return an error listing candidates, and unknown/custom fields are stored as raw Jira JSON. This adds substantial value and aligns with the destructiveHint without contradicting any annotation.

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 text is dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action and then packs the field-reference mapping and replacement caveats into a compact paragraph. A bulleted list could improve scannability, but the information is efficiently presented with no filler.

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?

For a tool with a free-form fields object and no output schema, the description covers all critical invocation details: accepted field types, null semantics, list replacement behavior, and restrictions (no status/comment). It leaves no obvious gap that would prevent correct use, even for agents unfamiliar with Jira.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for the fields object. It meticulously specifies value types for summary, description, assignee, labels, components, priority, duedate, parent, and custom fields, including edge cases like 'me' and ambiguous-name errors. This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set issue fields') and then details exactly which fields are supported and their formats. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it cannot change status (use transition_issue) or add a comment (use add_comment), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides explicit when-not guidance: status changes and comments belong to transition_issue and add_comment respectively. It also instructs the agent to read the issue first before adding to labels/components because they replace the whole list, which is concrete usage advice.

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