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.
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 by structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the 50-row cap and most-recent ordering. It omits what happens on private/nonexistent repos and whether pagination is supported beyond offset/limit.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return-shape detail second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 simple paginated list tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the essentials are present. With no output schema, however, the description never says what an issue record contains (number, title, labels, assignee), leaving the agent to guess at the response shape.
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 coverage is 100%, so owner, repo, limit, and offset are all documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's only added meaning is result ordering (most-recent), which is not in the schema but also is not a parameter semantic.
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?
Specific verb+resource: "List open issues for a public repository." An agent can tell this is a read/list operation scoped to a single repo. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling merjax_search_issues, which could plausibly be chosen for the same goal.
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 only usage constraint given is "for a public repository," which implicitly excludes private repos, and that is useful. There is no statement of when to prefer this over merjax_search_issues or merjax_list_prs, and no prerequisites (auth, rate limits) are mentioned.
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.
