GitHub MCP Server

github_get_issue

Fetch detailed information about a specific GitHub issue by providing the repository (owner/repo) and issue number. Use it to inspect issue details via the GitHub MCP Server.

Instructions

獲取特定問題的詳細資訊

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": {
      "repository": "<repository>",
      "issueNumber": "<issueNumber>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repository`	Yes	倉庫標識 (格式: owner/repo)
`issueNumber`	Yes	問題編號

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but discloses nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior for missing issues or private repos, rate limits, or what '詳細資訊' actually contains. Too thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should say more about what is returned and under what conditions. As written, an agent knows only that it retrieves 'details' for one issue, which is insufficient for a tool in a large sibling namespace.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (repository format owner/repo, issueNumber). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('獲取') and resource ('特定問題的詳細資訊'), so an agent knows it fetches a single issue. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling github_get_issues (list issues) or github_get_issue_comments, leaving the single-vs-many distinction to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus github_get_issues, github_get_issue_comments, or github_create_issue. There are no stated prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing cues for a namespace with 19 siblings.

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