Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
github-mcp

github-mcp

by AbdeeBuilds
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_issue

Get details of a GitHub issue by providing the repository owner, name, and issue number.

Instructions

Get a single GitHub issue by its number.

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>",
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner (user or org)
numberYesIssue number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the issue does not exist. For a simple read tool, the description is adequate but minimal.

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 a single concise sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the main action and key identifier ('by its number'). No extraneous information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose. However, it could mention that the tool returns the full issue object, but this is a minor gap. The sibling tools provide additional context.

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 all three parameters (owner, repo, number) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, thus baseline score 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 'Get a single GitHub issue by its number', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_pull_request' and 'list_issues' by specifying it retrieves a single issue by number.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for fetching a single issue but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to use 'list_issues' for multiple issues, or when not to use it.

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