astrbot-mcp

github_create_issue

Create GitHub issues in a repository with a title, optional Markdown body, and labels to track bugs or tasks; write access and a configured token are required.

Instructions

创建 GitHub Issue（需开启 github.allow_write 且配置 token）。

Args: owner: 仓库拥有者。 repo: 仓库名称。 title: Issue 标题。 body: Issue 正文（Markdown）。 labels: 标签名称列表。

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": "github_create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`labels`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the write-permission and token prerequisites, which is important for a mutation tool. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., notifications, rate limits) or error behavior beyond the name implying creation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose and key prerequisite, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or wasted text.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation), the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and all parameters adequately. It could be more complete by mentioning side effects or error handling, but for an agent to invoke it correctly, the provided information is largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must provide parameter meaning; it does so for all five parameters (owner, repo, title, body, labels). It clarifies that body is Markdown and labels is a list of label names, adding value beyond the schema's bare titles. It does not explicitly state which parameters are required or default values, but overall the compensation is good.

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?

The description directly states '创建 GitHub Issue' (Create GitHub Issue), a specific verb and resource. It is the only create operation among the GitHub siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from read-only siblings like github_list_issues or github_get_issue.

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 mentions a prerequisite: '需开启 github.allow_write 且配置 token' (requires enabling github.allow_write and configuring a token). This gives some usage context, but it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions where it should not be used.

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