Skip to main content
Glama

jira_get_comments

Retrieve comments from a Jira issue to track discussions and updates. Provide the issue key to access all associated comments.

Instructions

Get comments on a Jira issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesThe Jira issue key

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for jira_get_comments: parses input, calls jiraClient.getComments, returns JSON stringified comments.
    case "jira_get_comments": {
      const { issueKey } = GetCommentsSchema.parse(args);
      const comments = await jiraClient.getComments(issueKey);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(comments, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:324-334 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListTools response, defines name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "jira_get_comments",
      description: "Get comments on a Jira issue",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueKey: { type: "string", description: "The Jira issue key" },
        },
        required: ["issueKey"],
      },
    },
  • Zod schema for input validation used in the handler.
    const GetCommentsSchema = z.object({
      issueKey: z.string().describe("The Jira issue key"),
    });
  • Core implementation: GET request to Jira REST API /issue/{issueKey}/comment to fetch comments.
    async getComments(
      issueKey: string
    ): Promise<{ comments: JiraComment[]; total: number }> {
      return this.request<{ comments: JiraComment[]; total: number }>(
        `/issue/${issueKey}/comment`
      );
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of JiraComment objects returned by the API.
    export interface JiraComment {
      id: string;
      self: string;
      body: string;
      author: {
        displayName: string;
        name: string;
      };
      created: string;
      updated: string;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get comments' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what format comments are returned in, if there are pagination limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., comment list format, fields included), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves the agent guessing about the response format and usage 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 'issueKey' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that comments are retrieved for a specific issue. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('comments on a Jira issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jira_get_issue' which retrieves issue details rather than comments. However, it doesn't specify whether it retrieves all comments or a subset, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an issue key), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'jira_get_issue' which might include comments. The agent 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