jira-alerts-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Close a JSM alert

jsm_close_alert

DestructiveIdempotent

Close a Jira Service Management alert to mark it resolved and stop all notifications, removing it from the open queue. Use when the incident is fixed, not while work is ongoing.

Instructions

Close a JSM alert, marking it resolved and ending all notifications for it.

Closing is how an alert leaves the open queue. Treat it as effectively one-way: a closed alert cannot be reopened through this API, and a recurring condition will create a fresh alert (or increment a deduplicated one) rather than reviving this record. Prefer jsm_acknowledge_alert while work is still in progress.

Args:

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

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

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

Examples:

"Close it, the deploy fixed it" -> alert_id=, note="Resolved by rollback of build 4412"

Don't use when: the alert is still being worked — acknowledge instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alert_id`	Yes	Full 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No
`alert_id`	Yes
`requestId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.0Sep 12, 2026

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"

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.0.0Sep 8, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / note

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional note explaining the resolution. Strongly recommended — it's the record future responders will read.",
-  "maxLength": 25000,
-  "type": "string"
-}

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"
-}

First observedv1.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already declaring destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds critical context: the action is asynchronous, must be verified via jsm_get_request_status, and is effectively one-way (a closed alert cannot be reopened through this API). It also explains that recurring conditions create fresh alerts rather than reviving the closed record.

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 purpose and one-way behavior, then structured into Args, Returns, IMPORTANT, Examples, and Don't use when. Slightly long because the Returns section duplicates the output schema and the example includes a phantom note parameter, but overall it is efficient and well organized.

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 destructive, asynchronous mutation, the description covers the essential operational details: the need to verify with jsm_get_request_status, the one-way nature of closing, and the preferred alternative while work is ongoing. Since an output schema exists, the return-value summary is extra but harmless, and nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents alert_id. The description's Args section merely repeats the full-id vs tinyId distinction, and its example introduces a note parameter that is absent from the schema (additionalProperties: false), which could mislead an agent. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds no valid parameter semantics beyond the 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 ('Close a JSM alert') and immediately clarifies the effect ('marking it resolved and ending all notifications'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming jsm_acknowledge_alert as the preferred tool while work is in progress.

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 it (alert leaves the open queue) and when not to use it ('Don't use when: the alert is still being worked — acknowledge instead'). It also names the alternative tool (jsm_acknowledge_alert) with a clear condition.

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