astrbot-mcp

github_list_issues

Lists a GitHub repository's issues with optional state, label, and pull-request filters to support review and triage.

Instructions

列出仓库的 Issue（可选是否包含 Pull Request）。

Args: owner: 仓库拥有者。 repo: 仓库名称。 state: open、closed 或 all。 labels: 逗号分隔的标签过滤。 include_pulls: 是否把 Pull Request 也包含在结果中。 per_page: 返回数量，1-100；0 表示使用配置值。

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>"
    },
    "name": "github_list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`state`	No	open
`labels`	No
`per_page`	No
`include_pulls`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that Pull Requests can be included and that labels are comma-separated, and explains per_page range and the special value 0. However, it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, ordering behavior, and broader pagination semantics.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists parameters compactly. It is appropriately sized for a six-parameter tool, though the trivial owner/repo definitions add little beyond the parameter names.

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 has six parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description fully documents all parameters and clarifies the key inclusion behavior, making it adequate for correct invocation. It falls short only on alternative-tool guidance and operational details such as authentication or rate limiting.

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 document all six parameters. It does so effectively, specifying state values, comma-separated label filtering, Pull Request inclusion, and per_page range with the special 0 behavior. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('列出仓库的 Issue') and clarifies the optional inclusion of Pull Requests. It is clearly a listing operation and distinguishable from sibling retrieval tools like github_get_issue, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implied by the filtering parameters and the optional Pull Request inclusion, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus github_get_issue or github_search_code. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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