Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

Get who is on-call next

jsm_get_next_on_call
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the responders taking over the next JSM on-call shift and its start time, so you can draft handover notes or decide if an alert can wait.

Instructions

Return the responders who take over the next shift on a JSM schedule, and when that shift begins.

Use this for handover messages and for deciding whether an alert can wait for the next rotation.

Args:

  • schedule_id (string): schedule id, or name if schedule_identifier_type='name'

  • schedule_identifier_type ('id' | 'name'): default 'id'

  • date (string, optional): ISO 8601 reference point; "next" is computed relative to it. Defaults to now

  • flat (boolean): default true — flat list of user identifiers; false shows rotation/escalation nesting

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

Returns (json format): { "next_on_call": { ... }, // the API response, unmodified "participants": [ // resolved, and the field to read { "id": string, "type": string, "displayName": string, "emailAddress": string } ] }

Responders are Atlassian account ids; this tool resolves them to names for you. If the credentials lack the Jira user scope the ids are still returned, with a note saying so.

Examples:

  • "Who picks up after this shift?" -> schedule_id=

  • "Who is on after the shift that covers Thursday?" -> date="2026-08-27T12:00:00Z"

  • "Draft a handover note" -> combine with jsm_list_alerts query="status:open"

Error handling:

  • HTTP 401 here while alert tools work means the token is missing read:ops-config:jira-service-management — schedules and on-call sit behind a different scope from alerts, so this is a scope gap, not a bad credential.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoISO 8601 reference timestamp. The next shift is computed relative to this instant rather than to now, e.g. '2026-08-21T18:30:00Z'. Defaults to now.
flatNotrue (default) returns a flat list of on-call user identifiers. false returns the nested structure showing which rotation or escalation each person came from.
schedule_idYesSchedule id, or the schedule name when schedule_identifier_type='name'.
response_formatNoOutput format. 'markdown' is compact and human-readable (default); 'json' returns every field for programmatic use.markdown
schedule_identifier_typeNoWhether schedule_id holds an id or a schedule name. A name costs one extra lookup, because every schedule endpoint takes an id.id

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shiftNo
next_on_callYes
participantsYes

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds rich context beyond annotations: explains identifier resolution to names, discloses the Jira user scope caveat, and gives a precise 401 diagnosis distinguishing a scope gap from a bad credential. This is the kind of operational insight structured fields cannot carry.

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 purpose, followed by usage, args, returns, examples, and error handling in a scannable format. Slightly list-heavy but each section earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameter details, return shape (even though output schema exists), identifier resolution behavior, and a specific error condition. Complete for an agent to call this correctly in a JSM ops context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates parameter meanings but adds little beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on the flat=true/false structure beyond what schema says).

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Return the responders who take over the next shift on a JSM schedule, and when that shift begins.' Clearly distinguished from sibling jsm_get_on_call (current shift) and jsm_get_schedule_timeline by the word 'next'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit use cases ('handover messages', 'deciding whether an alert can wait for the next rotation') and cross-tool examples with jsm_list_alerts. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with jsm_get_on_call (current on-call), which an agent may confuse with this one.

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