cc-agent

close_issue

Resolve a GitHub issue by closing it, with an optional comment to explain the closure.

Instructions

Close a GitHub issue, optionally posting a comment.

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": "<repo>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "close_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	GitHub repo in owner/repo format
`comment`	No	Comment to post when closing (optional)
`issue_number`	Yes	Issue number to close

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.16.15Jul 30, 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 carries full burden. It states the tool closes an issue and optionally posts a comment, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or behavior if the issue is already closed.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential action without fluff. It earns its place, though it could include more context without being wordy.

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 presence of sibling issue tools, the description minimally distinguishes by verb but lacks details on outcomes, error states, or side effects. No output schema, so return behavior is unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the optional comment parameter.

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 the action 'Close a GitHub issue' with an optional comment. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_project_issues' or 'comment_on_issue' by the specific verb 'close'.

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 like 'comment_on_issue' for only commenting, or 'work_on_issue' for other actions. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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