Skip to main content
Glama

jira_edit

Edit existing JIRA issues by setting any editable field via display name or ID, with automatic value coercion for selects, labels, dates, rich-text (Markdown to ADF), and parent. Preview changes with dry_run.

Instructions

Set arbitrary fields on an existing JIRA issue by field display name or canonical id — labels, selects, story points, dates, rich-text custom fields (e.g. Acceptance Criteria), parent, and other editable fields. Names are resolved against the issue's edit screen and values coerced to the API shape, so pass natural values: {"Labels": ["a", "b"], "Story Points": 8, "Acceptance Criteria": "- one\n- two"}. String values for rich-text fields are JFM markdown auto-converted to ADF ("" clears the field); pass a raw ADF object ({"type": "doc", ...}) to bypass conversion. Complements jira_write (description body, assignee/reporter, raw-id fields); to change workflow status use jira_transition; for hierarchy jira_link_parent remains the canonical surface. Set dry_run: true to preview the request (method, path, body) without updating. Returns {status: ok, key, updated_fields} as YAML. Mirrors the CLI's omni-dev atlassian jira write --set-field.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesJIRA issue key (e.g., `PROJ-123`).
fieldsYesMap of field display name or canonical id (e.g. `"Labels"`, `"labels"`, `"Story Points"`, `"customfield_19300"`) to its new value. Names are resolved against the issue's edit screen (editmeta) and values are coerced to the API shape: select/option fields take the option string (becomes `{"value": ...}`), multi-selects an array of option strings, labels a plain string array, number/date fields the bare scalar, issue-link fields (e.g. Parent) an issue key string (becomes `{"key": ...}`). Rich-text fields (e.g. Acceptance Criteria) take JFM markdown (auto-converted to ADF; the empty string `""` clears the field) or a raw ADF document object (`{"type": "doc", ...}`) which is validated and forwarded as-is.
dry_runNoWhen true, resolve and return the would-be request (method, path, body) without updating the issue. Defaults to `false`.
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully owns behavioral disclosure. It details name resolution via edit screen, value coercion, rich-text conversion (JFM markdown to ADF, empty string clears, raw ADF bypass), the dry_run preview behavior, and the return format. Missing explicit error/permission details, but the provided context is substantial and actionable.

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?

While dense, every sentence earns its place: purpose, example, rich-text behavior, sibling differentiation, dry_run, return format, and CLI mirror. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how field values are interpreted, when to use alternates, the dry-run capability, and the response format. An agent can confidently select and invoke it without additional documentation.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes parameter semantics thoroughly. The description adds further value with a concrete natural-value example (labels, story points, acceptance criteria), reinforces the empty-string-clears behavior, and clarifies the dry_run output shape, going beyond the baseline.

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+resource+scope: 'Set arbitrary fields on an existing JIRA issue by field display name or canonical id.' It lists concrete field examples and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools (jira_write, jira_transition, jira_link_parent), making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Complements jira_write (description body, assignee/reporter, raw-id fields); to change workflow status use jira_transition; for hierarchy jira_link_parent remains the canonical surface.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool vs. alternatives, plus explains the dry_run option for previewing.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/rust-works/omni-dev'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server