Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

Run a custom action on a JSM alert

jsm_execute_alert_action
Destructive

Run a configured custom alert action on a Jira Service Management alert using its full ID and exact action name; then verify completion via request status.

Instructions

Run one of your organisation's own custom alert actions — the buttons a team wires up on an integration, like "Restart service" or "Roll back deploy".

What these do is entirely up to whoever configured them, and this server cannot see it. An action name is a request to run somebody's automation against production.

Args:

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

  • action_name (string): the configured action's name, exactly as configured

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

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

Do not guess an action name. There is no endpoint that lists them, so a plausible-sounding guess is exactly as likely to be a real destructive automation as it is to be nothing. An unrecognised name is accepted and silently does nothing, which means a successful receipt is not evidence that anything ran. Ask the user which action they mean, and confirm before running it.

Constraints and errors:

  • Names are configured per integration, so an action that exists for one alert's source may not exist for another's.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
action_nameYesName of a custom action configured for your organisation's integrations. Not free text: an unrecognised name is accepted and then does nothing. Ask the user what actions exist rather than guessing a plausible one.

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. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: explains the action is asynchronous, that an unrecognised name is accepted and silently does nothing (so a receipt is not evidence of execution), and that names are per-integration. Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces the danger with production-impact warnings, not contradiction.

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?

Well front-loaded with the core purpose, then args, returns, and a critical warning. The structure is clear, though the warning section is somewhat verbose and repeats the schema's own guidance about guessing action names.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained further. The description covers the asynchronous follow-up, error semantics (silent success on unknown names), and integration scoping — everything an agent needs to invoke this dangerous tool responsibly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the alert_id vs tinyId distinction and the action_name warning. The description reiterates the key gotchas (full alert id not tinyId; exact configured name) but adds little beyond what the schema provides, warranting a 4 rather than higher.

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 (run) and resource (custom alert action), with concrete examples like "Restart service" and "Roll back deploy". It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming jsm_get_request_status as the verification tool and noting the action is user-configured, which no sibling does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (running a team's configured automation against an alert) and strong when-not guidance (do not guess an action name; ask the user and confirm). It names the follow-up tool jsm_get_request_status for verification.

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