Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

Update a JSM alert's priority, message or description

jsm_update_alert_field
DestructiveIdempotent

Overwrite an alert's priority, message, or description to correct it when new information is known. Read the current value first to avoid destroying existing context.

Instructions

Overwrite one field on an existing JSM alert: its priority, its message, or its description.

This is how an alert gets corrected once triage knows more than the integration that raised it did — a P3 that turns out to be customer-facing, a message that says "check failed" when it should say which check, a description that should carry what has been tried.

Args:

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

  • field ('priority' | 'message' | 'description'): which field to overwrite

  • value (string): the new value

There are no 'user' or 'source' arguments here, unlike the other write tools: these three endpoints take only the value.

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

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

This overwrites, it does not append. Reading the current value first with jsm_get_alert is the difference between adding context to a description and destroying what someone else wrote in it. If you mean to add to the record without replacing anything, use jsm_add_alert_note instead — notes are additive and are what the activity timeline is for.

For field='priority', value must be exactly one of P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 — not "high", not "1", not "p1".

Examples:

  • "This is worse than we thought, make it a P1" -> field="priority", value="P1"

  • "Fix the alert title to name the failing endpoint" -> read it first, then field="message"

Constraints and errors:

  • Raising priority may change who is paged, since routing and escalation rules read it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldYesWhich field to overwrite. Each is a separate endpoint under the hood.
valueYesThe new value. For field='priority' this must be exactly one of P1, P2, P3, P4, P5. For 'message' keep it to one line — it is the headline responders read first. For 'description' anything goes, and an empty string clears it.
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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the action is asynchronous, overwrites rather than appends, and may change paging behavior when priority is raised. It also warns that not reading the current value first can destroy content written by someone else. These behavioral traits are concrete and directly relevant to safe invocation, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 longer than average, but every section earns its place: purpose, arguments, return value, async behavior, destructive warning, alternative tool, field-specific constraints, and examples. The key warning about overwriting is front-loaded after the summary, and the structure makes the important caveats easy to find.

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?

The description is complete for a destructive, asynchronous mutation tool. It covers what the operation does, how to invoke it correctly, what to do after invocation, what pitfalls exist, and which siblings to use instead. The output schema plus provided return example fill in the response contract, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: alert_id must be the full id and not the tinyId, priority must be exactly P1–P5, message should be one line, and an empty description clears it. It also clarifies that there are no user/source arguments, which helps the agent avoid confusion with other tools.

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: 'Overwrite one field on an existing JSM alert' and immediately enumerates the three possible fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling write tools by contrasting with jsm_add_alert_note, and the purpose is unambiguous even without reading the 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: correcting an alert once more is known, and warns against using it to append context. It names the exact alternative (jsm_add_alert_note) and tells the agent to read the current value first with jsm_get_alert. It also explains the async follow-up step with jsm_get_request_status.

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