astrbot-mcp

github_get_issue

Retrieves the body text of a single GitHub issue or pull request using the repository owner, repository name, and issue or PR number.

Instructions

获取单个 Issue 或 PR 的正文。

Args: owner: 仓库拥有者。 repo: 仓库名称。 number: Issue 或 PR 编号。

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": "github_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`number`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden, but only says it retrieves a body. It is silent on read-only/side-effect-free nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, and whether closed issues/PRs are included.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short with the purpose statement front-loaded; every line is compact. The Args block is largely redundant padding given the schema titles.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the tool is simple (3 required, obvious params). Still, a GitHub fetch tool with no annotations should say something about auth and read semantics.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but the Args section merely restates the schema titles (owner/repo/number) in Chinese. The one useful addition is clarifying that 'number' refers to either an Issue or PR number, which is marginal against three undocumented parameters.

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 and resource: fetch the body of a single Issue or PR. '单个' implicitly separates it from github_list_issues and github_search_code, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — the singular scope suggests fetching one known item by number rather than listing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g. github_list_issues for enumeration).

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