Retrieve details for a specific Jira project by project key. Use it to fetch project metadata, configuration, or identifiers needed for issue tracking and automation.
Get details of a specific Jira project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectKey | Yes | The project key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates that the tool gets details; it does not disclose what those details are, whether the operation is purely read-only, what errors may occur, or what the response format will be.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter lookup and front-loads the core purpose effectively.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotation safety profile, the lack of any detail about return values or behavioral constraints leaves meaningful gaps for an agent.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single 'projectKey' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional formatting, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without enriching parameter semantics.
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 clearly identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('details of a specific Jira project'), and the singular scope, which distinguishes it from jira_get_projects. An agent can easily tell that this is for one project rather than a list.
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?
The word 'specific' implies this is the tool to use when a particular project key is already known, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer jira_get_projects for listing or provide exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not clearly documented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.