Read a single issue from the tracker using its issue ID.
Read one issue from the tracker.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "read_issue"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_id | No | ISSUE-1 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, permission requirements, or what happens when the issue does not exist. For a single-record fetch, error and not-found behavior is exactly what an agent needs and is entirely absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with this many informational gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool is structurally simple (one flat string parameter). Still, the identifier format and not-found behavior are missing, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (issue_id) is never mentioned in the description. The schema supplies a default of 'ISSUE-1' but no format or identifier guidance, and the description does nothing to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one issue from the tracker'), which is clearly distinct from the resource-oriented siblings like read_digest, read_ledger, and read_audit_log. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself, but the resource noun alone makes routing unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus the other read tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for fetching a single known issue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.