cc-agent

list_project_issues

List GitHub issues from a repository with filters for state, labels, and assignee to track project tasks.

Instructions

List GitHub issues for a repository using the gh CLI.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_project_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	GitHub repo in owner/repo format
`state`	No	Issue state filter (default: open)
`labels`	No	Filter by labels (optional)
`assignee`	No	Filter by assignee login (optional). Uses gh --assignee flag; the returned JSON field is 'assignees' (plural).

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 provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'using the gh CLI' but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens when a repo does not exist, pagination, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior accurately.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant information. However, it is so brief that it omits valuable context, preventing a higher score.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return format, pagination, or error handling. It provides none of this. The schema descriptions cover parameter meanings, but overall contextual completeness for agent decision-making is lacking.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely restates the purpose. Thus, it does not improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (list) and resource (GitHub issues for a repository). It avoids tautology and provides specific context about using gh CLI. However, it could be more precise by indicating the scope (e.g., all issues vs. filtered) to better distinguish from sibling tools.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools or GitHub issue actions). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools.

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