GitHub MCP Server

github_get_issues

Fetch GitHub repository issues by state and labels to review open, closed, or all issues.

Instructions

獲取倉庫的問題列表

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": {
      "repository": "<repository>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	No	問題狀態	open
`labels`	No	標籤列表
`per_page`	No	每頁顯示數量
`repository`	Yes	倉庫標識 (格式: owner/repo)

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it paginates (the per_page parameter hints at it but no default-window behavior is explained), or how results are ordered. Only the bare purpose is conveyed.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy or filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the minimal description leaves real gaps: no pagination/ordering semantics, no authentication expectations, and no indication of what a result entry contains. It is not enough for a confidently correct call on a richer tool.

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 (state, labels, per_page, repository) are already documented in the schema, including the state enum and the owner/repo format. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 specific verb and resource ('獲取倉庫的問題列表' – get the repository's issue list), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the singular sibling github_get_issue. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from any other sibling such as github_get_pull_requests or github_get_issue_comments.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this list tool versus github_get_issue (single issue) or the comment/PR tools. No prerequisites, no pagination advice, no exclusions are given; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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