Skip to main content
Glama

jira_link_issues

Link two Jira issues by specifying inward and outward issue keys with a relationship type like 'Blocks' or 'Relates' to establish connections between tickets.

Instructions

Link two Jira issues

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inwardIssueYesInward issue key
outwardIssueYesOutward issue key
linkTypeYesLink type name (e.g., 'Blocks', 'Relates')

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'jira_link_issues' that parses arguments using Zod schema and calls JiraClient.linkIssues method.
    case "jira_link_issues": {
      const { inwardIssue, outwardIssue, linkType } =
        LinkIssuesSchema.parse(args);
      await jiraClient.linkIssues(inwardIssue, outwardIssue, linkType);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Issues ${inwardIssue} and ${outwardIssue} linked with type "${linkType}"`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • JiraClient method implementing the issue linking logic by POSTing to Jira's /issueLink REST endpoint.
    async linkIssues(
      inwardIssue: string,
      outwardIssue: string,
      linkType: string
    ): Promise<void> {
      await this.request<void>("/issueLink", {
        method: "POST",
        body: JSON.stringify({
          type: { name: linkType },
          inwardIssue: { key: inwardIssue },
          outwardIssue: { key: outwardIssue },
        }),
      });
    }
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for the jira_link_issues tool.
    const LinkIssuesSchema = z.object({
      inwardIssue: z.string().describe("Inward issue key"),
      outwardIssue: z.string().describe("Outward issue key"),
      linkType: z.string().describe("Link type name (e.g., 'Blocks', 'Relates')"),
    });
  • src/index.ts:409-423 (registration)
    Registration of the jira_link_issues tool in the MCP server's listTools response, including schema.
    {
      name: "jira_link_issues",
      description: "Link two Jira issues",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          inwardIssue: { type: "string", description: "Inward issue key" },
          outwardIssue: { type: "string", description: "Outward issue key" },
          linkType: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Link type name (e.g., 'Blocks', 'Relates')",
          },
        },
        required: ["inwardIssue", "outwardIssue", "linkType"],
      },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Link two Jira issues' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's reversible, what happens if issues are already linked, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential purpose.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of linking operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between inward/outward issues or providing link type examples beyond the schema's single example.

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 ('Link') and resource ('two Jira issues'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_get_issue_link_types' which might be related to linking operations, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when linking is appropriate, or how it differs from other issue modification tools like 'jira_update_issue'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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