DevPilot MCP

Get GitHub issue

get_issue

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a GitHub issue with its title, state, labels, author, dates, body, recent comments, and linked pull requests. Use it read-only to start triaging issues.

Instructions

Fetch a GitHub issue with its discussion: title, state, labels, author, dates, body, recent comments, and linked pull requests. Read-only. Start here when triaging an issue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	No	GitHub repository name. Optional, see "owner".
`owner`	No	GitHub owner (user or org). Optional: defaults to the workspace's "origin" remote (local mode) or the only allowlisted repo (remote mode).
`issue_number`	Yes	Issue (or PR) number, e.g. 42.
`max_comments`	No	Maximum number of comments to return (most recent first kept). Default 20.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`body`	Yes
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`state`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`author`	Yes
`labels`	Yes
`number`	Yes
`comments`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`linked_prs`	Yes
`updated_at`	Yes
`total_comments`	Yes
`is_pull_request`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description repeats 'Read-only' and lists returned content, but adds no behavioral context such as auth needs, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by scope and usage cue. No wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With rich annotations, 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema present, the description supplies enough context for correct invocation. It does not need to explain return values further.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch a GitHub issue with its discussion. It also lists the returned fields and positions the tool as the starting point for triage, distinguishing it from sibling analyze_issue.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here when triaging an issue,' giving clear usage context. It does not name when not to use it or explicitly route to alternatives like analyze_issue, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server