Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OrionBI

by ai.orionbi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create a GitHub issue

github_create_issue

Create a new issue in a repository on one of YOUR OWN GitHub connections. Shared connections are read-only and cannot create issues. Provide a title and optional body.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "github_create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional issue body (Markdown).
repoYesRepository in "owner/repo" form, e.g. octocat/Hello-World. The owner is the GitHub LOGIN exactly as it appears in the repository URL (github.com/<owner>/<repo>) — not a display name, and not the connection's name.
titleYesIssue title.
connectionNoWhich GitHub connection to use, by its name from github_list_connections. This is a local label for the connection, NOT a GitHub username — for anything GitHub has to resolve, use that connection's login instead. Optional when you have exactly one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the ownership requirement and the failure mode for shared connections, which the annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying what is returned (issue number/URL) or what happens on duplicate titles, which would round out the mutation behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the ownership constraint before the parameter restatement. Nothing is padded and the most important caveat arrives before the agent commits to a call.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the key non-obvious risk (attempting to write through a read-only shared connection) is explicitly called out. The only shortfall is that a caller gets no hint about the result of a successful creation, such as an issue number or URL.

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%, and the schema already spells out the owner/repo format, the Markdown body, and the connection-vs-login distinction, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Provide a title and optional body' merely restates requiredness and adds no syntax or formatting meaning over the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a new issue in a repository') and immediately scopes it to 'one of YOUR OWN GitHub connections', which separates it cleanly from read siblings such as github_get_issue, github_list_issues, and github_create_issue_comment. An agent can pick this tool without inspecting any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete precondition for use: the target repository must live on a connection you own, because 'Shared connections are read-only and cannot create issues.' That is a real routing rule an agent can act on. What it lacks is an explicit pointer to the read-only alternative (github_list_issues / github_get_issue) when the caller only has a shared connection, so the exclusion is stated but the next step is not.

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

All OrionBI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources