Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-atlassian-extended

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Jira Get Project Versions

jira_get_project_versions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all versions for a Jira project by project key to view release history, plan upgrades, or manage fixes. Works with Jira Server, Data Center, and Cloud.

Instructions

List all versions for a Jira project (REST API v2, supports Server/DC and Cloud).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_keyYesProject key (e.g. PROJ)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.15.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_key / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_key / pattern
      Added value: +"^[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_]+$"
    • 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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful platform context (REST API v2, Server/DC and Cloud) but says nothing about pagination or ordering for a 'list all' operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical adds real platform/API-version value rather than restating the name.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is undisclosed pagination/return behavior for a 'list all' call.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents project_key including its pattern and example. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 (List) and resource (versions for a Jira project), which is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from the create/update version siblings by name and verb, but the description does not explicitly position itself against them.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'List', with no exclusions or guidance on choosing this over other version-related tools.

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