Skip to main content
Glama

list_jira_issues

Filter and retrieve Jira issues by project, keys, type, status, priority, date ranges, text search, and version fields. Returns a list of matching issues with metadata.

Instructions

    Args:
        project: Filter by project key (e.g., 'SMQE', 'OSIM')
        issue_keys: List of JIRA issue keys (e.g., ['SMQE-1280', 'SMQE-1281'])
        issue_type: Filter by issue type ID
        status: Filter by issue status ID
        priority: Filter by priority ID
        limit: Maximum number of issues to return (default: 50)
        search_text: Search in summary and description fields
        timeframe: Filter issues where ANY date (created, updated, or resolved) is within last N days (default: 0 = disabled)
        components: Comma-separated list; match ANY in component name
        created_days: Filter by creation date within last N days (overrides timeframe if > 0, default: 0 = disabled)
        updated_days: Filter by update date within last N days (default: 0 = disabled)
        resolved_days: Filter by resolution date within last N days (default: 0 = disabled)
        fixed_version: Filter by fixed/target version name
        affected_version: Filter by affected version name

    Returns:
        Dictionary containing issues list and metadata
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNo
issue_keysNo
issue_typeNo
statusNo
priorityNo
limitNo
search_textNo
timeframeNo
componentsNo
created_daysNo
updated_daysNo
resolved_daysNo
fixed_versionNo
affected_versionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The return type is vague ('Dictionary containing issues list and metadata'), providing minimal behavioral insight.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is structured as an Args list followed by Returns. It covers all 14 parameters adequately but lacks a front-loaded purpose statement. The length is justified by the number of parameters, but the lack of a summary or hierarchical grouping reduces conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 14 parameters (all optional), the description covers each filter. However, it omits high-level purpose, usage context, and return structure details. The output schema exists but its content is not described beyond a vague statement, leaving the agent uncertain about response format.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., project: 'e.g., SMQE, OSIM', timeframe: 'default: 0 = disabled'). This adds value beyond the schema, though some descriptions are terse.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The tool name 'list_jira_issues' clearly indicates its function, and the parameter list implies filtering and listing issues. However, the description lacks an explicit high-level statement of purpose, relying solely on parameter explanations. A concise purpose summary would improve clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_jira_issue_details, get_jira_issues_by_sprint). The description does not mention alternatives or context-specific usage, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/redhat-community-ai-tools/jira-mcp-snowflake'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server