jira_list_fieldsRetrieve Jira fields, optionally filtered by name or custom-only, to find field IDs for issue setup and automation.
List Jira fields, optionally filtered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Filter fields by name | |
| custom_only | No | Only return custom fields |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether all fields or only visible/creatable fields are returned, whether the list is paginated, or whether custom fields behave differently.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than genuine economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema, fully documented schema, annotations covering safety), so the thin description is minimally viable. It still leaves the return shape and result volume unaddressed, which an agent enumerating fields would want to know.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully ("Filter fields by name", "Only return custom fields"). The description's "optionally filtered" adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("List Jira fields"), which is unambiguous on its own. However it offers no differentiation from siblings — no other sibling lists fields, so no disambiguation is needed, but neither is any comparison or scope boundary drawn.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Optionally filtered" hints that filtering exists but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding between this and, say, jira_list_projects or any other enumeration tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.