Skip to main content
Glama

jira_add_comment

Add comments to Jira issues to provide updates, share information, or document progress on tickets.

Instructions

Add a comment to a Jira issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesThe Jira issue key
bodyYesComment body

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for jira_add_comment: parses input arguments using AddCommentSchema, calls jiraClient.addComment(issueKey, body), and returns the created comment as JSON.
    case "jira_add_comment": {
      const { issueKey, body } = AddCommentSchema.parse(args);
      const comment = await jiraClient.addComment(issueKey, body);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(comment, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Zod input schema definition for validating tool arguments: issueKey (string) and body (string).
    const AddCommentSchema = z.object({
      issueKey: z.string().describe("The Jira issue key"),
      body: z.string().describe("Comment body"),
    });
  • src/index.ts:335-346 (registration)
    Tool registration entry in the ListTools response, defining name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "jira_add_comment",
      description: "Add a comment to a Jira issue",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueKey: { type: "string", description: "The Jira issue key" },
          body: { type: "string", description: "Comment body" },
        },
        required: ["issueKey", "body"],
      },
    },
  • Core implementation in JiraClient: POST request to Jira REST API /rest/api/2/issue/{issueKey}/comment with body payload.
    async addComment(issueKey: string, body: string): Promise<JiraComment> {
      return this.request<JiraComment>(`/issue/${issueKey}/comment`, {
        method: "POST",
        body: JSON.stringify({ body }),
      });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, affects issue history, returns a confirmation, or handles errors. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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%, with both parameters ('issueKey' and 'body') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 states the action ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a Jira issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_get_comments' or 'jira_update_issue' beyond the basic verb, missing specific distinctions about scope or constraints.

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 like 'jira_update_issue' (which might also modify issue content) or 'jira_get_comments' (for reading). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing issue access or comment permissions, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yogeshhrathod/JiraMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server