Obtiene una issue completa por id: content con chips $[...], status, priority y el chip para enlazarla.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "issues_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID de la issue |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Obtiene' implies a read, and the field list hints at the payload shape, but nothing is said about permission requirements, behavior when the id does not exist, or whether the call has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves real gaps.
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?
One compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is dense but readable; the embedded field enumeration is slightly list-like yet still earns its place by clarifying 'completa'.
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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input identity and a partial sketch of returned fields. It stops short of error behavior or link-chip usage, which an agent would need to act on the result correctly.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond restating 'por id', which matches the baseline of 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource in 'Obtiene una issue completa por id', and the 'por id' qualifier implicitly separates it from list/search siblings. The addition of returned fields (content con chips, status, priority, chip de enlace) further pins down what 'completa' means, though it never names an alternative tool.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the only signal is the required 'id', which implies the agent must already know the issue identifier. No mention of what to do when the id is unknown (e.g., use issues_search or issues_list) and no prerequisites stated.
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.