Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitPilot MCP

GitPilot MCP

by Divyanshu-hash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_issue

Retrieve full details of a GitHub issue by specifying the repository and issue number.

Instructions

Get details about a GitHub issue.

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": {
      "repo_input": "<repo_input>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_inputYes
issue_numberYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, scope of details returned, or any side effects. The minimal phrase 'Get details' is insufficient.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise (one sentence) with no wasted words, but it is too short to convey necessary information. It sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and the complexity of retrieving a GitHub issue, the description should indicate what details are returned (e.g., title, body, comments) or any prerequisites. It is incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention 'repo_input' or 'issue_number' at all, leaving their meaning and format implicit. The schema provides type info but no semantic context.

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 clearly states 'Get details about a GitHub issue', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'get_repo_context' by focusing on a single issue, but does not elaborate further.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_repo_context' or other issue-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools