Skip to main content
Glama
rrvrs

jira-alerts-mcp

Edit a note on a JSM alert

jsm_update_alert_note
DestructiveIdempotent

Correct an existing note on a JSM alert by replacing its text. Use it to fix mistakes such as a wrong hostname; for new developments, add a note instead.

Instructions

Replace the text of an existing note on a JSM alert.

Use it to correct a note you just wrote — a wrong hostname, a stale conclusion. Prefer adding a new note with jsm_add_alert_note for anything that reads as a development rather than a correction: the timeline is the record of what responders knew and when, and editing history out of it costs more than an extra line.

Args:

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

  • note_id (string): id of the note to edit, from jsm_list_alert_notes

  • note (string): the replacement text

Returns the updated note: { "alert_id", "note_id", "note", "owner", "createdAt", "updatedAt" }

Unlike every other alert write, this one is synchronous. It answers with the note itself, so there is no requestId and nothing to verify with jsm_get_request_status.

This replaces the note's whole text. There is no append. Read the note first if you mean to add to it.

Examples:

  • "Fix my last note, the host is db-3 not db-2" -> jsm_list_alert_notes, take the id, then update with the corrected text

Constraints and errors:

  • HTTP 404 means the note id does not belong to that alert. Note ids come from jsm_list_alert_notes, not from the note's text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesNote text to record on the alert's activity timeline.
note_idYesId of the note to edit, from jsm_list_alert_notes. Not the note's text.
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
idNo
noteNo
ownerNo
note_idNo
alert_idYes
createdAtNo
updatedAtNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: this operation is synchronous unlike other alert writes, returns the updated note with no requestId, replaces the entire note text with no append, and has a specific 404 meaning. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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: primary behavior, usage guidance, parameter semantics, return behavior, destructive warning, example, and error meaning. It is well-structured with headers and front-loaded warnings, making it easy to scan.

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 3-parameter mutation with an output schema and rich annotations, this description is complete. It covers why to use it, what it does, how it behaves differently from siblings, what gets replaced, what returns, and how to interpret a common error. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section adds meaningful clarification: alert_id must be the full id not the tinyId, note_id is sourced from jsm_list_alert_notes, and note is the complete replacement text. It reinforces and slightly extends the schema without merely repeating it.

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 states a specific action ('Replace the text of an existing note') on a specific resource (a JSM alert note), and explicitly contrasts it with jsm_add_alert_note. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling note tools.

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 clearly says when to use this tool: to correct a note just written. It also explicitly says when NOT to use it and which sibling to prefer instead: use jsm_add_alert_note for anything read as a development, because the timeline is the record. The example reinforces this decision.

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