Skip to main content
Glama

jira_transition

Transition JIRA issues to new workflow statuses by name or ID. List available transitions, set resolutions, add comments, and pass custom fields for required screens.

Instructions

Transition a JIRA issue to a new workflow status. Most common usage: pass the transition name in transition, e.g. transition: "In Progress". The numeric id also works, e.g. transition: "31". Names are matched case-insensitively. If unsure which transitions are valid from the issue's current status, call this tool first with list = true (or omit transition) to get the available {id, name} pairs as YAML, then call again with one of those names. For transitions whose screen requires input, pass resolution (e.g. "Fixed") and/or custom_fields (a name→value map). Optionally pass comment (JFM markdown): it rides in the transition when the screen accepts a comment (satisfying a mandatory-comment screen), otherwise it is posted separately after the transition succeeds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesJIRA issue key (e.g., `PROJ-123`).
listNoIf true, returns the available transitions without applying one.
commentNoOptional comment (JFM markdown). Delivered in the transition itself when the transition screen accepts a comment (atomic, satisfies a mandatory-comment screen); otherwise posted as a separate comment after the transition succeeds.
resolutionNoOptional resolution to set on the transition, e.g. `"Fixed"`. Sent as `{"name": ...}`; the transition screen must accept a resolution.
transitionNoTransition name (case-insensitive) or numeric id, e.g. `"In Progress"` or `"31"`. Required unless `list` is true.
custom_fieldsNoOptional transition-screen fields, as a map of field name (or canonical id) → value. Values are coerced to the API shape the same way `jira_write`'s `fields` are (select/option → option string, arrays a string array, number/date the bare scalar). Names resolve against the transition's screen fields.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure. It reveals case-insensitive matching, numeric id support, side-effect-free list mode, resolution wire format ({'name': ...}), comment atomicity vs separate posting, and custom_fields coercion semantics—far beyond typical descriptions.

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?

Seven dense sentences, each delivering a distinct fact without filler. Examples are inline and scannable, and the structure flows from main usage to discovery to edge cases. No redundant restatement of the schema.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers virtually all operational aspects: valid transition discovery, argument forms, required screen fields, comment handling, and list mode. It is sufficient for correct invocation in nearly all scenarios.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds significant semantic value: transition matching rules, list mode behavior, resolution format, and custom_fields coercion aligned with jira_write. These details are not present in the schema property descriptions.

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 clear verb+resource+scope: 'Transition a JIRA issue to a new workflow status.' It further specifies the main transition argument, numeric-id support, and a list mode, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even without comparing to siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit usage instructions: pass transition name/id, use list=true to discover valid transitions first, pass resolution/custom_fields for screen-required input, and mentions comment behavior. It gives clear context but does not name the sibling jira_transition_list as an alternative for listing, so no explicit exclusion is stated.

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