Gyuniverse GitHub Projects MCP

resolve_github_issue_or_pr_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert an allowed github.com issue or pull request URL into its GraphQL content node ID and canonical metadata for GitHub Projects v2 workflows.

Instructions

Resolve an allowed github.com Issue or Pull Request URL to its GraphQL content node ID and canonical metadata.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_github_issue_or_pr_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral fact that the URL must be an 'allowed' github.com URL and describes the transformation (URL to node ID + metadata), which is useful context, but it omits what happens for disallowed/malformed URLs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and scope are established immediately and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the node ID and canonical metadata. Annotations cover safety, so the main residual gap is error/allowlist behavior for a 1-param resolver.

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 0% on a single parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the input is a github.com Issue or PR URL (narrowing beyond the generic string/uri schema) and must be 'allowed', but it never defines the allowlist rule or accepted URL forms.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (github.com Issue or Pull Request URL) plus the precise output (GraphQL content node ID and canonical metadata). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling resolve_github_project_item, so it falls short of a 5, but the name and description make the scope clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative resolve_github_project_item, and no conditions under which this is preferred. 'Allowed' hints at a constraint but no caller-facing usage rule is stated.

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

Deploy Server