Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

Get who is on-call now

jsm_get_on_call
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find who is on-call for a Jira Service Management schedule now or at any past/future time, to know who to wake up and who was on-call during an incident. Returns responder names and emails.

Instructions

Return the responders currently on-call for a JSM schedule, optionally evaluated at a past or future timestamp.

This is the tool for "who do I wake up?" and, with the 'date' argument, for "who was on-call when this incident started?" — which is often the more useful question during a post-incident review.

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 timestamp to evaluate at; 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): { "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, so there is no need to look an id up elsewhere. If the credentials lack the Jira user scope the ids are still returned, with a note saying so.

Examples:

  • "Who's on-call for platform right now?" -> schedule_id="platform", schedule_identifier_type="name"

  • "Who was on-call at 03:14 UTC yesterday?" -> date="2026-08-20T03:14:00Z"

Error handling:

  • An empty result means nobody is rostered at that moment — a real and important answer, not a failure.

  • HTTP 404 means the schedule id/name is wrong; list them with jsm_list_schedules.

  • 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 timestamp to evaluate the rotation at, e.g. '2026-08-21T18:30:00Z'. Defaults to now. Use this to answer 'who was on-call when this fired?'
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
on_callYes
participantsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond this: it resolves Atlassian account ids to display names, identifies 'participants' as the field to read, explains that an empty result is a valid answer rather than a failure, and details 401/404 semantics including the specific missing OAuth scope.

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?

The description is long but tightly organized into Args, Returns, Examples, and Error handling sections, with every sentence earning its place. The most important usage distinction is front-loaded, and the error handling section preempts common failure modes an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers everything an agent needs: parameter semantics, return shape, the key field to read, example invocations, and failure interpretation. The presence of an output schema plus this rich narrative makes the tool fully self-contained for correct selection and invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains when schedule_id is a name versus an id, gives concrete ISO 8601 examples for the date argument, clarifies the practical difference between flat=true and flat=false, and maps natural-language example queries to actual parameter settings. This is genuinely additive rather than redundant.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the responders currently on-call for a JSM schedule', and immediately clarifies that it can also evaluate a past or future timestamp. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the tool as 'who do I wake up?' and 'who was on-call when this incident started?', which separates it from jsm_get_next_on_call and jsm_list_schedules.

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?

The description explicitly states what this tool is for, including the post-incident review use case with the 'date' argument. It gives concrete example prompts mapped to parameter values, and in error handling it directs the agent to jsm_list_schedules for 404s, providing clear routing to an alternative tool.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rrvrs/jira-alerts-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server