Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

by rrvrs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get JSM alert details

jsm_get_alert
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full details of a single JSM alert, including description, custom properties, responders, and tags, when the list view provides only a summary.

Instructions

Retrieve the full detail of a single JSM alert, including its description, custom details/extraProperties, responders, tags and dedupe count.

Use this after jsm_list_alerts when you need the payload an integration attached to the alert (host, service, metric values, runbook links) — the list endpoint returns a thinner record without the description or details map.

Args:

  • identifier (string): the full alert id, or an alias when identifier_type='alias'

  • identifier_type ('id' | 'alias'): default 'id'

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): default 'markdown'

Returns (json format): a single alert object with id, tinyId, message, description, status, acknowledged, snoozed, priority, source, owner, tags, responders, details (custom key/value map), extraProperties, count, createdAt, updatedAt, lastOccurredAt, and a report block with acknowledgedBy/closedBy. Responder ids are resolved to names where the credentials allow it.

Examples:

  • "What does alert #4821 actually say?" -> resolve the id via jsm_list_alerts, then call with identifier=

  • "Look up the alert our pipeline created with alias 'redis-latency-prod'" -> identifier="redis-latency-prod", identifier_type="alias"

Error handling:

  • HTTP 404 usually means a tinyId was passed instead of the full id. Resolve it with jsm_list_alerts first.

  • Aliases only resolve against OPEN alerts; a closed alert must be fetched by id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYesThe alert's full id, or its alias if identifier_type='alias'. The short tinyId from the UI is NOT accepted by the API — search with jsm_list_alerts to resolve a tinyId to a full id.
identifier_typeNoWhich identifier was supplied. 'id' hits /v1/alerts/{id}; 'alias' hits the separate /v1/alerts/alias endpoint.id
response_formatNoOutput format. 'markdown' is compact and human-readable (default); 'json' returns every field for programmatic use.markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alertYes

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. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: responder ids are resolved to names when credentials allow, aliases only resolve against OPEN alerts, and HTTP 404 usually means a tinyId was passed. These operational constraints are not derivable from annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then grouped Args/Returns/Examples/Error handling sections. Every section carries distinct information; nothing is redundant filler.

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 single-resource getter with rich annotations and an output schema, this is complete: it covers purpose, routing from the list sibling, identifier pitfalls, error recovery, and alias scoping. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further with worked examples showing identifier/identifier_type usage in context (e.g. alias lookup for a closed vs open alert) and repeats the tinyId caveat. It adds marginal interpretive value over the fully documented 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 (retrieve full detail of a single JSM alert) and enumerates the payload fields returned. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling jsm_list_alerts by noting the list endpoint returns a thinner record.

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 to use this 'after jsm_list_alerts when you need the payload an integration attached' — naming the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. The examples reinforce the intended sequencing.

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