Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-atlassian-extended

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Jira Create Link

jira_create_link

Create links between two Jira issues by specifying the link type and issue keys. Add an optional comment to document the relationship.

Instructions

Create a link between two Jira issues.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentNoOptional comment on the link
link_typeYesLink type name (Relates, Blocks, Duplicate, etc.)
inward_issueYesInward issue key (receives the action)
outward_issueYesOutward issue key (performs the action)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.6.13

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and external-dependency profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of required permissions, whether the link type must pre-exist, or what happens on duplicate links.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is neither bloated nor padded, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description is inadequate: it omits link-type availability, directionality implications, error behavior, and the optional comment's effect, all of which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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%, so all four parameters (including link_type semantics and inward/outward direction) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('link between two Jira issues'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like jira_create_issue or jira_delete_link. However, it offers no further differentiation or scope detail beyond the single clause.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as jira_delete_link, nor any prerequisite context (e.g., that the link types must already exist in the instance). The agent must infer all usage conditions.

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