Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP DevOps Kit

MCP DevOps Kit

by Jmfrodero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

github_create_issue

Create a new issue in a GitHub repository by specifying owner, repo, title, body, and labels.

Instructions

Create a new issue on a GitHub repository

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "github_create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesRepository owner
repoYesRepository name
titleYesIssue title
bodyNoIssue body/description
labelsNoIssue labels

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 burden. It only states the creation action but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. While concise, it misses opportunities to add value within the same length.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 3 required) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, success behavior, or potential errors, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 the input schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning, examples, or constraints, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new issue on a GitHub repository'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like github_get_repo_info or github_list_repos, which are for read operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or alternatives. It only states the function without contextual usage information.

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