Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omni-dev

omni-dev

by rust-works
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

jira_attachment_upload

Upload local files to a JIRA issue by providing the issue key and absolute file paths. Streams each file in a single multipart request and returns attachment metadata.

Instructions

Upload one or more local files as attachments to a JIRA issue. Provide file_paths as absolute paths on the MCP server's filesystem; each is streamed from disk and rides a single multipart request. Returns YAML metadata (id, filename, mime_type, size, content_url) for each created attachment. Mirrors omni-dev atlassian jira attachment upload.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "key": "<key>",
      "file_paths": "<file_paths>"
    },
    "name": "jira_attachment_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesJIRA issue key (e.g., `PROJ-123`).
file_pathsYesLocal filesystem path(s) to the file(s) to upload. Each is streamed from disk (never fully buffered in memory) and rides a single multipart request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.40.0
  2. Removedv0.39.0
  3. Addedv0.33.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that files are streamed from disk (never fully buffered), sent in a single multipart request, and that a YAML metadata structure is returned. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not mention auth or side effects like overwriting existing attachments.

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 three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful CLI mirror reference. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains input requirements, behavior (streaming, single request), and return format (YAML metadata fields). It lacks error conditions but is otherwise complete for an upload tool.

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%; both `key` and `file_paths` are well-documented. The description repeats some file_paths details already in the schema (streaming, multipart) but adds nothing new about `key` or beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema handles parameter semantics fully.

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 clearly states 'Upload one or more local files as attachments to a JIRA issue,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_attachment_download and jira_attachment_delete, and adds context about local files on the MCP server's filesystem.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use (when you need to attach files from the server's filesystem) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use. The note about absolute paths on the server's filesystem provides some context, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools