Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

by rrvrs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Add a note to a JSM alert

jsm_add_alert_note

Append a note to a JSM alert timeline without changing its state to record triage findings or context for the next responder.

Instructions

Append a note to a JSM alert's activity timeline without changing its state.

Use this to record triage findings, link a runbook or dashboard, or leave context for the next responder. It does not acknowledge, close, or reassign the alert.

Args:

  • alert_id (string): the full alert id (not the tinyId)

  • note (string): the note text

  • user (string, optional): actor name/email; defaults to the credential owner

  • source (string, optional): source label for the activity log

Returns: { "requestId": string, "result": string, "alert_id": string }

IMPORTANT: this action is asynchronous. Verify with jsm_get_request_status using the returned requestId.

Examples:

  • "Note that this correlates with the 14:02 deploy" -> alert_id=, note="Correlates with deploy 4412 at 14:02 UTC"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesNote text to record on the alert's activity timeline.
alert_idYesFull alert id, e.g. '9b251e07-73c9-4907-9996-8cb53a6a20d0-1704440650350'. This is NOT the short tinyId shown in the JSM UI — get the full id from jsm_list_alerts first.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNo
alert_idYes
requestIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / source
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Free-text source label shown in the alert activity log, e.g. 'claude-mcp'.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / user
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Display name or email recorded as the actor for this action. Defaults to the owner of the API credentials.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). The description adds two behaviors annotations cannot express: the operation is asynchronous and must be verified via jsm_get_request_status with the returned requestId, and it appends to the timeline without mutating alert state.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then scope constraint, use cases, args, return, and a worked example — a sensible order with little filler. The Args and Returns blocks partially duplicate the schema and output schema, which is the only real padding.

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 an async mutation with an output schema and annotations, this covers the essentials: the exact identifier to supply, the state-preservation guarantee, the async follow-up tool, and a concrete example. The only gap, the phantom user/source arguments, is a correctness slip rather than a missing concept.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100% for the two real parameters, and the description's alert_id/note notes largely restate the schema. Worse, the Args block advertises 'user' and 'source' as optional parameters that do not exist in the schema, which declares additionalProperties: false — an agent following the description could pass arguments that get rejected.

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 (append a note to a JSM alert's activity timeline) plus the crucial scope constraint that it does not change alert state. It explicitly separates itself from siblings jsm_acknowledge_alert, jsm_close_alert and jsm_assign_alert, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Names concrete use cases (record triage findings, link a runbook/dashboard, leave context for the next responder) and states what the tool is NOT for. It also points to the follow-up tool (jsm_get_request_status) required after the async call, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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