Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

Take back an acknowledgement on a JSM alert

jsm_unacknowledge_alert
Idempotent

Return an acknowledged alert to unacknowledged status so escalation notifications resume. Use when an alert was acked by mistake or can't be worked, putting it back in the paging queue.

Instructions

Return an acknowledged JSM alert to unacknowledged, so escalation notifications resume.

Use this when someone acked an alert they cannot actually work — picked it up by mistake, or got pulled onto something else — and it needs to go back into the escalation path so the next responder is paged. It does not close, snooze or reassign the alert.

Args:

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

Returns: { "requestId": string, "result": string, "alert_id": string }

IMPORTANT: this action is asynchronous. Verify with jsm_get_request_status using the returned requestId.

This restarts paging. Say so before doing it on someone's behalf — the practical effect is that a phone rings.

Examples:

  • "I can't take this one after all, put it back" -> alert_id=, note="Handing back, on another incident"

Constraints and errors:

  • Unacknowledging an alert that was never acknowledged is a no-op, not an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNo
alert_idYes
requestIdNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true), the description discloses that the action is asynchronous and should be verified via jsm_get_request_status, that it restarts paging and can cause a phone to ring, and that unacknowledging an already-unacknowledged alert is a no-op. These details align with and enrich the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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?

The description is front-loaded with its core purpose and uses clear sections including Args, Returns, IMPORTANT, Examples, and Constraints. It is somewhat long, and the example imports a non-existent `note` parameter, but nearly every other sentence carries meaningful operational guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating alert tool with an output schema, the description covers return shape, asynchronous verification, idempotency, and human-impact warning, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. The only real gap is the misleading example that references a `note` parameter not present in the input schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema already fully documents alert_id at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3; the description adds little beyond repeating the full-id warning. However, the example line `note="Handing back, on another incident"` introduces a `note` argument that is absent from the schema and disallowed by additionalProperties=false, which could mislead an agent into passing an invalid parameter.

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 first sentence states the exact action ('Return an acknowledged JSM alert to unacknowledged') and the consequence ('escalation notifications resume'). This is a specific verb+resource phrasing that clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling alert-mutation actions, and the 'does not close, snooze or reassign' line reinforces the boundary.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use scenario ('picked it up by mistake, or got pulled onto something else') and explicitly excludes alternative behaviors by stating it does not close, snooze, or reassign. It also adds practical advice about warning the person before restarting paging, which helps an agent decide when to invoke the 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