Skip to main content
Glama

jira_add_watcher

Add a user as a watcher to a Jira issue to keep them informed about updates and changes.

Instructions

Add a watcher to a Jira issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesThe Jira issue key
usernameYesUsername to add as watcher

Implementation Reference

  • Handler case for jira_add_watcher tool that parses arguments, calls jiraClient.addWatcher, and returns success message
    case "jira_add_watcher": {
      const { issueKey, username } = AddWatcherSchema.parse(args);
      await jiraClient.addWatcher(issueKey, username);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Added ${username} as watcher to ${issueKey}`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Core implementation of adding a watcher to a Jira issue via POST to /issue/{issueKey}/watchers endpoint
    async addWatcher(issueKey: string, username: string): Promise<void> {
      await this.request<void>(`/issue/${issueKey}/watchers`, {
        method: "POST",
        body: JSON.stringify(username),
      });
    }
  • Zod input schema for validating jira_add_watcher tool parameters
    const AddWatcherSchema = z.object({
      issueKey: z.string().describe("The Jira issue key"),
      username: z.string().describe("Username to add as watcher"),
    });
  • src/index.ts:426-439 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListTools response including name, description, and JSON input schema
      name: "jira_add_watcher",
      description: "Add a watcher to a Jira issue",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueKey: { type: "string", description: "The Jira issue key" },
          username: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Username to add as watcher",
          },
        },
        required: ["issueKey", "username"],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a watcher' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether this action is reversible, what happens if the user is already a watcher, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 states the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding a watcher, what the response contains, whether there are rate limits, or what error conditions might occur. Given the tool's complexity (modifying Jira issue state) and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('issueKey' and 'username') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 watcher') and target resource ('to a Jira issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'jira_assign_issue' or 'jira_update_issue' that also modify issue properties, leaving room for potential confusion about when to choose this specific tool.

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. With sibling tools like 'jira_assign_issue' and 'jira_update_issue' that also modify issue properties, there's no indication of when adding a watcher is appropriate versus other modifications, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints for using this tool.

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