Skip to main content
Glama

jira_get_edit_meta

Retrieve editable fields and allowed values for existing Jira issues to prepare accurate updates and maintain data integrity.

Instructions

Get metadata for editing an issue - shows editable fields and allowed values for an existing issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesThe Jira issue key to get edit metadata for

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler case that validates input using GetEditMetaSchema, calls jiraClient.getEditMeta, and returns the metadata as JSON.
    case "jira_get_edit_meta": {
      const { issueKey } = GetEditMetaSchema.parse(args);
      const meta = await jiraClient.getEditMeta(issueKey);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(meta, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Zod schema used for input validation in the tool handler.
    const GetEditMetaSchema = z.object({
      issueKey: z.string().describe("The Jira issue key to get edit metadata for"),
    });
  • src/index.ts:475-489 (registration)
    Tool registration entry in the ListToolsRequestHandler, defining name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "jira_get_edit_meta",
      description:
        "Get metadata for editing an issue - shows editable fields and allowed values for an existing issue",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueKey: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The Jira issue key to get edit metadata for",
          },
        },
        required: ["issueKey"],
      },
    },
  • JiraClient helper method that makes the REST API call to /rest/api/2/issue/{issueKey}/editmeta to fetch edit metadata.
    async getEditMeta(issueKey: string): Promise<unknown> {
      return this.request<unknown>(`/issue/${issueKey}/editmeta`);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns ('shows editable fields and allowed values') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the metadata returns. The description covers basic purpose but misses operational context.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and provides just enough detail about what the metadata includes. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the return format, error handling, and operational constraints that would be helpful for an agent. The description is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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 the single parameter 'issueKey' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 metadata for editing') and resource ('an issue'), specifying it's for an existing issue. It distinguishes from jira_get_create_meta by focusing on edit metadata rather than create metadata, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other metadata tools like jira_get_fields or jira_get_field_options.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context ('for editing an issue', 'for an existing issue') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_get_create_meta or jira_get_fields. No guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.

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