Skip to main content
Glama

jira_create_issue

Create new Jira issues by specifying project, summary, issue type, description, priority, assignee, and labels to track tasks, bugs, or stories in your workflow.

Instructions

Create a new Jira issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectKeyYesProject key
summaryYesIssue summary
issueTypeYesIssue type (e.g., Bug, Task, Story)
descriptionNoIssue description
priorityNoPriority name
assigneeNoAssignee username
labelsNoLabels

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler: validates input parameters using CreateIssueSchema, constructs the issue creation payload, calls jiraClient.createIssue, and returns the created issue as JSON.
    case "jira_create_issue": {
      const {
        projectKey,
        summary,
        issueType,
        description,
        priority,
        assignee,
        labels,
      } = CreateIssueSchema.parse(args);
      const issue = await jiraClient.createIssue({
        fields: {
          project: { key: projectKey },
          summary,
          issuetype: { name: issueType },
          ...(description && { description }),
          ...(priority && { priority: { name: priority } }),
          ...(assignee && { assignee: { name: assignee } }),
          ...(labels && { labels }),
        },
      });
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(issue, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:251-274 (registration)
    Tool registration: defines the tool name, description, and input schema in the ListTools response.
    {
      name: "jira_create_issue",
      description: "Create a new Jira issue",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          projectKey: { type: "string", description: "Project key" },
          summary: { type: "string", description: "Issue summary" },
          issueType: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Issue type (e.g., Bug, Task, Story)",
          },
          description: { type: "string", description: "Issue description" },
          priority: { type: "string", description: "Priority name" },
          assignee: { type: "string", description: "Assignee username" },
          labels: {
            type: "array",
            items: { type: "string" },
            description: "Labels",
          },
        },
        required: ["projectKey", "summary", "issueType"],
      },
    },
  • Zod input validation schema matching the tool's inputSchema, used to parse arguments in the handler.
    const CreateIssueSchema = z.object({
      projectKey: z.string().describe("Project key"),
      summary: z.string().describe("Issue summary"),
      issueType: z.string().describe("Issue type (e.g., Bug, Task, Story)"),
      description: z.string().optional().describe("Issue description"),
      priority: z.string().optional().describe("Priority name"),
      assignee: z.string().optional().describe("Assignee username"),
      labels: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("Labels"),
    });
  • JiraClient helper method: sends POST request to /rest/api/2/issue endpoint to create the issue.
    async createIssue(data: JiraCreateIssueRequest): Promise<JiraIssue> {
      return this.request<JiraIssue>("/issue", {
        method: "POST",
        body: JSON.stringify(data),
      });
    }
  • TypeScript type definition for the createIssue request payload used by the JiraClient.
    export interface JiraCreateIssueRequest {
      fields: {
        project: { key: string };
        summary: string;
        description?: string;
        issuetype: { name: string };
        priority?: { name: string };
        assignee?: { name: string };
        labels?: string[];
        [key: string]: unknown;
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new Jira issue' implies a write operation, but it doesn't mention authentication requirements, permissions needed, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on success (e.g., returns an issue ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a write operation with 7 parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., issue key or ID), error conditions, or how it differs from the advanced sibling. For a mutation tool without structured safety or output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 each parameter documented (e.g., 'Project key', 'Issue summary'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new Jira issue' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Jira issue'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'jira_create_issue_advanced', leaving ambiguity about when to use this simpler version versus the advanced one. The description is functional but lacks 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. With a sibling tool named 'jira_create_issue_advanced', there's an obvious need to explain the difference (e.g., basic vs. advanced creation, or which fields are supported), but the description offers no such context. Users must infer usage 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.

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