Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

Check JSM async request status

jsm_get_request_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether an asynchronous JSM alert action succeeded by passing the requestId returned by a write, confirming the change actually landed.

Instructions

Check whether an asynchronous alert action actually succeeded.

Every JSM alert write (acknowledge, close, add note, assign, snooze) returns immediately with a requestId and does NOT apply the change synchronously. Pass that requestId here to confirm the action landed — this is the correct way to verify a write, rather than immediately re-reading the alert and finding it unchanged.

Args:

  • request_id (string): the requestId returned by a write tool

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

Returns (json format): { "action": string, // e.g. "Acknowledge" "isSuccess": boolean, "status": string, // human-readable outcome, e.g. "Alert acknowledged" "processedAt": string, // ISO 8601 "alertId": string, "alias": string }

Examples:

  • After jsm_acknowledge_alert returns requestId "d383c6e9-..." -> request_id="d383c6e9-..."

Error handling:

  • HTTP 404 shortly after a write usually means the request is still queued; wait a second and retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesThe requestId returned by any alert write tool (acknowledge, close, note, assign, snooze).
response_formatNoOutput format. 'markdown' is compact and human-readable (default); 'json' returns every field for programmatic use.markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the async/eventually-consistent nature of writes, and the error-handling hint that a 404 shortly after a write means the request is still queued and should be retried. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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, examples, and error handling in scannable sections. Slightly verbose in repeating the full return shape despite an existing output schema, but every 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?

For an async-status tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete: it explains the async workflow, how to obtain the parameter, and how to interpret a transient failure. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it ties request_id to its origin ('the requestId returned by a write tool') and gives a concrete example using jsm_acknowledge_alert. It also restates response_format's purpose, though the schema already covers that.

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 ('Check whether an asynchronous alert action actually succeeded') and explains the async requestId model. It clearly distinguishes itself from the write tools and from re-reading the alert, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like jsm_get_alert.

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 (after any JSM alert write returns a requestId) and when not to (do not just re-read the alert and find it unchanged). It names the write actions that produce a requestId, giving clear routing guidance.

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