Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

List JSM alert activity logs

jsm_list_alert_logs
Read-onlyIdempotent

List a JSM alert's system activity log to trace state changes, notifications, escalations, and automated actions. Use it to find why nobody was paged or when an alert was escalated and to whom.

Instructions

List the system activity log for a JSM alert — every state transition, notification, escalation and automated action, newest first by default.

Use this to answer "why did nobody get paged?" or "when was this escalated and to whom?". Logs are system-generated; human comments live in jsm_list_alert_notes instead.

Args:

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

  • limit (number): 1-100, default 20

  • order ('asc' | 'desc'): default 'desc'

  • offset (string, optional): opaque cursor from a previous response's next_cursor

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

Returns (json format): { "logs": [{ "log": string, "owner": string, "createdAt": string, "type": string, "offset": string }], "pagination": { "count": number, "has_more": boolean, "next_cursor": string } }

Examples:

  • "Trace the escalation path for this alert" -> alert_id=, order="asc", limit=100

  • "Who acked this and when?" -> alert_id=, limit=20

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of records to return (1-100, default 20).
orderNoChronological order of returned entries (default 'desc', newest first).desc
offsetNoCursor from a previous response's 'next_cursor'. These endpoints use opaque cursors, not numeric offsets.
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.
response_formatNoOutput format. 'markdown' is compact and human-readable (default); 'json' returns every field for programmatic use.markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
logsYes
paginationYes

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context the annotations don't: that logs are system-generated, that ordering defaults to newest-first, and how cursor paging continues via next_cursor. It does not discuss rate limits or retention, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by args, returns and examples in a predictable order. It is slightly verbose because the Args section duplicates content already present at 100% schema coverage, but nothing is ambiguous or padded.

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 paginated read tool with a declared output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the log contains, ordering, cursor paging, ID format caveat, and task examples. Return values are also spelled out, which is redundant but harmless.

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%, including the alert_id vs. tinyId distinction and the opaque-cursor semantics for offset, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's Args block largely restates that; the examples are the only marginal addition, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (the system activity log for a JSM alert) and enumerates the event types it contains (state transitions, notifications, escalations, automated actions). It explicitly separates itself from jsm_list_alert_notes ('human comments live in ... instead'), so an agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete task framings — 'why did nobody get paged?' and 'when was this escalated and to whom?' — plus two worked examples mapping user intent to exact argument values. It names the sibling that covers the adjacent use case (notes vs. logs).

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