Jira Enterprise MCP

jira_update_issue

Update common fields like summary, description, priority, or assignee on a specified Jira issue using its issue key.

Instructions

Update selected common fields on an existing Jira issue.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issueKey": "<issueKey>"
    },
    "name": "jira_update_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`summary`	No	Updated issue summary
`issueKey`	Yes	Jira issue key, for example ABC-123
`description`	No	Updated issue description
`assigneeName`	No	Assignee username or account identifier supported by the tenant
`priorityName`	No	Priority name, for example High

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' but does not describe whether updates are atomic, how omitted fields are handled (left unchanged?), required permissions, or side effects. Significant transparency gaps remain.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. Minor improvement could be made to elaborate on 'common fields' but overall concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It implies updating only provided fields but lacks details on success/failure responses or idempotency. Sibling diversity demands more context for correct invocation.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds marginal value by framing the fields as 'selected common fields', hinting at limited scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not introduce new semantic depth beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('existing Jira issue') and specifies it operates on 'selected common fields', which distinguishes it from creating issues or transitioning them. Sibling tools like jira_create_issue and jira_transition_issue reinforce this differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_create_issue or jira_transition_issue. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server