jira_upload_attachmentUpload a local file as an attachment to a Jira issue using its issue key and file path; optionally override the filename.
Upload a file as an attachment to a Jira issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Override filename | |
| file_path | Yes | Local file path to upload | |
| issue_key | Yes | Jira issue key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Input schema / properties / issue_key / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / issue_key / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_]+-\\d+$"Output 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 declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/external nature is partly covered. The description adds nothing further: no attachment size limits, no overwrite behavior for duplicate filenames, no permission requirements, and no indication of what the call returns (e.g. an attachment id). For a mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is redundant and the verb+resource appear immediately.
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?
With no output schema and complete parameter documentation, the definition is minimally viable for calling the tool. It is incomplete on the behavioral side, though: return value, size limits, and duplicate-handling are absent, leaving the agent to guess at operational constraints.
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 issue_key, file_path, and the filename override are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional semantics such as format constraints or filename behavior, 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?
The description states a specific verb (upload) and resource (file as attachment to a Jira issue), which cleanly distinguishes it from the read/delete attachment siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or scope conditions, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the issue must exist, permissions needed), and no reference to the sibling tools jira_get_attachments, jira_download_attachment, or jira_delete_attachment. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.