List open issues for a public repository. Returns up to 50 ordered by most-recent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repo name | |
| limit | No | Max rows per page (default 25, max 50) | |
| owner | Yes | Repo owner — username or organisation slug | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip, for paging. Use `nextOffset` from the previous response. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / owner / descriptionPrevious value: -"Repo owner username"New value: +"Repo owner — username or organisation slug"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max results, default 25"New value: +"Max rows per page (default 25, max 50)"Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Rows to skip, for paging. Use `nextOffset` from the previous response.",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it only lists open issues (not all issues), returns up to 50, and orders by most-recent. It doesn't mention that closed issues are excluded or that the repo must be public, but the description explicitly says 'public repository' and 'open issues', which are meaningful constraints beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the pagination/ordering behavior is stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers scope, ordering, and pagination limits. It doesn't describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that an agent can infer the return format from the parameters and the 'nextOffset' hint in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 four parameters. The description adds the 'open issues' filter and 'ordered by most-recent' behavior, which gives context for the limit/offset parameters, but doesn't add per-parameter meaning 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('open issues'), a scope ('for a public repository'), and a concrete behavior ('Returns up to 50 ordered by most-recent'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gluecron_search_issues (search) and gluecron_list_prs (pull requests).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: when you need open issues for a public repo, with pagination and ordering. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_issues, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.