Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

Take back an acknowledgement on a JSM alert

jsm_unacknowledge_alert
Idempotent

Return an acknowledged JSM alert to unacknowledged so escalation notifications resume. Use it when a responder acked by mistake and the alert must re-enter the paging path.

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.

  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. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond them by disclosing async execution, the verification path (jsm_get_request_status with the requestId), the escalation/paging side effect, and the no-op-on-unacked behavior — a genuinely useful behavioral layer. Minor deduction because the async guidance duplicates what the returned requestId field already implies.

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: purpose first, then when-to-use, args, returns, async warning, examples, constraints. The Returns block is redundant given an output schema exists, and the example invents a 'note' field, slightly diluting an otherwise tight structure.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema, the definition covers the safety profile (async, no-op case, paging restart), the verification workflow, and a concrete example — everything an agent needs to call it correctly and warn the user.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents alert_id fully, including the tinyId caveat. The description only restates 'the full alert id (not the tinyId)', adding no new syntax. The example's 'note=' argument does not exist in the schema, which is mildly misleading rather than clarifying.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Return an acknowledged JSM alert to unacknowledged, so escalation notifications resume.' It also explicitly delimits scope against siblings — 'does not close, snooze or reassign' — mapping directly to jsm_close_alert, jsm_snooze_alert, and jsm_assign_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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use ('someone acked an alert they cannot actually work — picked it up by mistake') plus explicit when-not via the close/snooze/reassign exclusion. It even adds a behavioral caution to communicate before acting, which no sibling definition would provide.

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