Retrieve one Jira issue by key to get its summary, status, description, comments, and linked items as structured data. Read-only access for coding agents.
Fetch a single Jira issue by key (e.g. DEMO-123) as compact structured data: summary, description, status, type, priority, acceptance criteria (if configured), comments, and linked issues. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_key | Yes | Jira issue key, e.g. DEMO-123 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose 'Read-only' plus the shape of what comes back. However, it is silent on behavior for a missing/invalid key, permission requirements, and whether the response is paginated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence delivers the action, identifier format, and return contents with little waste. The field list is somewhat long but each item is informative rather than filler.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags read-only behavior, which is enough for correct invocation. Missing details are limited to error and permission behavior.
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% and the single parameter's format (DEMO-123) is already documented in the schema, so the description's repeated example adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single Jira issue by key') and scopes it to one issue, which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling search_issues. The return-field enumeration reinforces what the tool is for.
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 key-based retrieval and the example key imply the usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_issues, get_related_issues, or get_comments, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.