Skip to main content
Glama

Github_private

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Gh List Issues

gh_list_issues
Read-onlyIdempotent

List issues in a repository. Specify owner and repo name (e.g., owner='octocat', repo='Hello-World'). Returns titles, numbers, status, assignees, and labels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner
stateNoFilter: open, closed, all (default: open)
per_pageNoResults per page (max 100)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of items returned.
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items returned.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "assignees": {
+            "description": "List of assignees",
+            "items": {
+              "properties": {
+                "id": {
+                  "description": "Assignee ID",
+                  "type": "number"
+                },
+                "login": {
+                  "description": "Assignee login",
+                  "type": "string"
+                }
+              },
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "body": {
+            "description": "Issue description",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "ISO timestamp of creation",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "html_url": {
+            "description": "Issue web URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Issue ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "labels": {
+            "description": "List of labels",
+            "items": {
+              "properties": {
+                "color": {
+                  "description": "Label color (hex)",
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "name": {
+                  "description": "Label name",
+                  "type": "string"
+                }
+              },
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "number": {
+            "description": "Issue number",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "description": "Issue state (open or closed)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Issue title",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "updated_at": {
+            "description": "ISO timestamp of last update",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "user": {
+            "properties": {
+              "id": {
+                "description": "User ID",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "login": {
+                "description": "User login",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "owner": "octocat",
+    "repo": "Hello-World",
+    "state": "open"
+  },
+  {
+    "owner": "octocat",
+    "per_page": 50,
+    "repo": "Hello-World",
+    "state": "all"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds return field details (titles, numbers, status, assignees, labels) and an example, but since an output schema exists, this is redundant. No additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits are mentioned.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core verb-resource statement, and includes a practical example. No wasted words.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete given the annotations and output schema. It covers the essential purpose and parameter usage. A minor omission is a note about pagination behavior, but per_page is described in the schema, so the context is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description's example reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'List issues in a repository' with a specific verb and resource, and includes example parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gh_list_pulls and gh_list_repos by naming the resource type explicitly.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to list issues) and shows examples of filtering by state and pagination. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

All Github_private toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among many tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve query-answer purposes with subtle differences, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar arbitrage/mispricing territory. Additionally, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence clearly overlap, making it hard to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a gh_ prefix (gh_get_file, gh_get_repo, etc.), others are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, bet_research), and a few are plain verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The mixed conventions and varied verb/noun styles make the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

At 37 tools, the count is high but still within a usable range. However, the server is named 'Github_private' yet includes only 7 GitHub-specific tools and 30+ unrelated tools (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, etc.). This suggests the server aggregates multiple unrelated domains, making the count feel bloated for its apparent GitHub purpose.

Completeness2/5

Given the server name, the GitHub tool surface is severely incomplete: there are no create/update/delete operations for repos, no PR creation or merging, no issue comments, no branches, and no search across repos. The Pipeworx side is fairly comprehensive, but the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool set leaves major gaps for expected GitHub workflows.

Resources