Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jtk

jtk

by zach-snell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

manage_attachments

Manage attachments on Jira issues by listing, downloading, uploading, or deleting files directly.

Instructions

Manage Jira issue attachments (list, download, upload, delete). Actions: 'list', 'download', 'upload', 'delete'

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_attachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'list', 'download', 'upload', 'delete'
issue_keyNoJira issue key (for 'list', 'upload')
attachment_idNoAttachment ID (for 'download', 'delete')
file_pathNoAbsolute path to the file to upload (required for upload). Note: paths refer to the MCP server's filesystem. In stdio mode this is the local machine.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description gives minimal behavioral info (list of actions) but lacks details on success/failure, idempotency, permissions, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and to the point, but slightly redundant (second sentence restates first). No unnecessary words.

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 multi-action tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. Does not explain behavior per action (e.g., what 'list' returns, how 'download' delivers file).

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 schema already explains parameters. Description adds no new meaning beyond listing action names already in schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states the tool manages Jira issue attachments with specific actions (list, download, upload, delete). The description distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_issues or manage_boards.

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 on when to use each action or alternatives. Does not explain prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools