OrionBI

List GitHub issues

github_list_issues

Read-only

List issues in a repository you can access (your own or a shared GitHub connection). Pull requests are excluded. Returns up to 50 issues. Filter by state (open, closed, all).

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>"
    },
    "name": "github_list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository 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.
`state`	No	Issue state filter (default open).
`connection`	No	Which 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.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds two things annotations cannot convey: PRs are filtered out server-side and results are capped at 50 issues, which is important for an agent deciding whether it needs further pagination or a narrower state filter. It stops short of saying whether a cursor/page parameter exists or how results are ordered.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the PR exclusion, then the result cap, then the filter. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by disclosing the 50-issue cap and the PR exclusion, which are the facts an agent most needs before calling. It does not describe the fields returned per issue (number, title, labels, assignees), which leaves a modest gap for a list tool whose consumers must know what they get back.

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 repo format, the state enum, and the connection label in detail. The description only restates the state values ('open, closed, all') and loosely gestures at the connection concept ('your own or a shared GitHub connection') without adding format or resolution rules beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List issues in a repository') and immediately carves out the key ambiguity: 'Pull requests are excluded,' which cleanly separates it from github_list_pull_requests. An agent can pick this over github_get_issue or github_list_pull_requests without opening 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?

Gives clear context for use: any repository you can access, whether personal or via a shared connection, plus the state filter to narrow results. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. use github_get_issue for a single issue, github_list_pull_requests for PRs), so routing is only implied by the PR exclusion rather than stated.

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

All OrionBI tools Inspect

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

Need Help?