Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
github-mcp

github-mcp

by AbdeeBuilds
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_issue

Submit a new GitHub issue with title, description, and labels to any repository you can write to.

Instructions

Create a new issue in a GitHub repository you have write access to.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoIssue body in markdown
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner (user or org)
titleYesIssue title (required, non-empty)
labelsNoOptional list of label names to apply at creation time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a write operation and permission requirement, but does not detail return values, error handling, or rate limits.

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?

One sentence, 12 words, no wasted content. Purpose is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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 tool is simple, schema covers all parameters, and sibling tools provide contrast. No output schema is needed; overall description is sufficient for typical usage.

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%, so the description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the action (create), the resource (issue), and a specific prerequisite (write access). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools which are read-only.

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 notes the prerequisite of write access, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives (e.g., get_issue for reading), so some guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools