Skip to main content
Glama

jira_transition_issue

Change the status of a Jira issue by moving it through its workflow. Provide the issue key, transition ID, and optional comment to update progress.

Instructions

Transition a Jira issue to a new status

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueKeyYesThe Jira issue key
transitionIdYesTransition ID
commentNoOptional comment

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for jira_transition_issue: validates input with schema, calls JiraClient.transitionIssue, returns success message.
    case "jira_transition_issue": {
      const { issueKey, transitionId, comment } =
        TransitionIssueSchema.parse(args);
      await jiraClient.transitionIssue(issueKey, transitionId, comment);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Issue ${issueKey} transitioned successfully`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Zod input schema for validating tool parameters: issueKey, transitionId, optional comment.
    const TransitionIssueSchema = z.object({
      issueKey: z.string().describe("The Jira issue key"),
      transitionId: z.string().describe("Transition ID"),
      comment: z.string().optional().describe("Optional comment"),
    });
  • src/index.ts:358-370 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListTools handler: defines name, description, and JSON input schema.
    {
      name: "jira_transition_issue",
      description: "Transition a Jira issue to a new status",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueKey: { type: "string", description: "The Jira issue key" },
          transitionId: { type: "string", description: "Transition ID" },
          comment: { type: "string", description: "Optional comment" },
        },
        required: ["issueKey", "transitionId"],
      },
    },
  • Core implementation in JiraClient: POST to /issue/{issueKey}/transitions with transition ID and optional comment.
    async transitionIssue(
      issueKey: string,
      transitionId: string,
      comment?: string
    ): Promise<void> {
      const body: {
        transition: { id: string };
        update?: { comment: Array<{ add: { body: string } }> };
      } = {
        transition: { id: transitionId },
      };
      if (comment) {
        body.update = {
          comment: [{ add: { body: comment } }],
        };
      }
      await this.request<void>(`/issue/${issueKey}/transitions`, {
        method: "POST",
        body: JSON.stringify(body),
      });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether transitions are reversible, side effects, or error handling. 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning its place by clearly stating the 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 incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, return values, or error scenarios, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'transitionId' relates to status changes, but this is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('transition') and resource ('a Jira issue'), specifying the outcome ('to a new status'). It distinguishes from siblings like jira_update_issue by focusing on status changes rather than general updates, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_update_issue or jira_get_transitions. The description implies usage for status changes but lacks context on prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions.

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