Skip to main content
Glama

manage_issues

Perform Jira issue operations including create, update, assign, transition, comment, link, and track changes to manage project workflows.

Instructions

Unified tool for Jira issue operations. Actions: 'get', 'list_types', 'get_links', 'get_history', 'create', 'update', 'assign', 'transition', 'add_comment', 'edit_comment', 'list_comments', 'delete', 'link', 'list_link_types', 'get_watchers', 'add_watcher', 'remove_watcher', 'move'

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'get', 'list_types', 'get_links', 'get_history', 'create', 'update', 'assign', 'transition', 'add_comment', 'edit_comment', 'list_comments', 'delete', 'link', 'list_link_types', 'get_watchers', 'add_watcher', 'remove_watcher', 'move'
issue_keyNoJira issue key (e.g., PROJ-123). Required for most actions
project_keyNoProject key (for 'create', 'list_types')
project_idNoProject ID (for 'list_types' — use project_key or project_id)
summaryNoIssue summary/title (for 'create', 'update')
descriptionNoIssue description in markdown (for 'create', 'update'). Supports: # headings, **bold**, *italic*, ~~strikethrough~~, [links](url), - bullet lists, 1. numbered lists, > blockquotes, tables, and fenced code blocks. URLs are auto-linked.
issue_typeNoIssue type: Story, Bug, Task, Epic, Sub-task (for 'create')
priorityNoPriority: Highest, High, Medium, Low, Lowest (for 'create', 'update')
assignee_idNoAssignee account ID (for 'create', 'update', 'assign'). Use 'unassigned' to remove
parent_keyNoParent issue key (for 'create')
labelsNoComma-separated labels (for 'create', 'update')
componentsNoComma-separated component names (for 'create', 'update')
fix_versionsNoComma-separated fix version names (for 'create', 'update')
due_dateNoDue date in YYYY-MM-DD format (for 'create', 'update')
transitionNoTarget transition name (for 'transition'), e.g. 'In Progress', 'Done'
commentNoComment body in markdown (for 'add_comment', 'edit_comment', 'link'). Supports: **bold**, *italic*, ~~strikethrough~~, [links](url), - lists, > blockquotes, and fenced code blocks. URLs are auto-linked.
comment_idNoComment ID (required for 'edit_comment')
link_typeNoLink type name (for 'link'), e.g. 'Blocks', 'Duplicate', 'Relates'
inward_keyNoInward issue key (for 'link') — the issue that IS affected
outward_keyNoOutward issue key (for 'link') — the issue that CAUSES the effect
target_project_keyNoTarget project key (for 'move'). Only works with company-managed (classic) projects
target_issue_typeNoTarget issue type name (for 'move'), e.g. 'Story', 'Task'. Optional — keeps current type if omitted
start_atNoPagination start (for 'list_comments', 'get_history')
max_resultsNoMax results to return
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists action types, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: which actions are read-only vs. mutative, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool with 18 different actions including destructive ones like 'delete', this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single run-on sentence listing 18 actions. While it's technically concise, it's poorly structured - the action list should be formatted better for readability. It's front-loaded with the vague 'unified tool' statement but doesn't efficiently communicate the tool's value. The structure could be improved with better organization.

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 complex tool with 24 parameters, 18 actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, action-specific behaviors, or how this comprehensive tool relates to specialized sibling tools. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed to effectively use this multi-action tool.

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 24 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, dependencies between action and parameters, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description states 'Unified tool for Jira issue operations' which is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'manage_issues'. While it lists 18 specific actions, it doesn't clearly articulate what the tool fundamentally does beyond being a 'unified tool'. The purpose is vague rather than specific about the core functionality.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 the 9 sibling tools (manage_attachments, manage_boards, etc.). There's no indication of scope boundaries, prerequisites, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between this comprehensive issue tool and more specialized sibling tools. No usage context 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/zach-snell/jtk'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server