huly-mcp-selfhost

get_issue_context

Read-only

Retrieve full context for a Huly issue, including its description, sub-issues, blockers, linking pull requests, comments, and branch name, so you can understand and act on it.

Instructions

Issue with description, sub-issues, blockers, PRs, comments, branch name

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": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workspace`	No
`identifier`	Yes	Issue id
`commentLimit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what the payload contains (sub-issues, blockers, PRs, comments, branch name), which is not in any structured field. It says nothing about the comment limit truncating results or the cost/size of the aggregated response.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but it is a comma-separated fragment with no verb and no front-loaded purpose statement, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than from it. A single leading clause like "Fetch full context for one issue, including ..." would have cost nothing.

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?

With three parameters, partial schema documentation, and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is returned, that comments are capped by commentLimit, and how workspace scoping applies. It delivers a partial return-value hint and nothing else.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 33%: only 'identifier' is documented, as "Issue id". The 'workspace' scoping parameter and 'commentLimit' (default 20) are undocumented in both schema and description; the word "comments" only faintly implies commentLimit's effect and never names it or its default.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is a bare noun-phrase field list: "Issue with description, sub-issues, blockers, PRs, comments, branch name". There is no verb and no statement that this retrieves an aggregated issue context; the meaning is only recoverable by reading the tool name and title. It hints at aggregation scope but does not declare the purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when this aggregate differs from a plain issue fetch. The agent must guess whether to call this or a simpler issue getter.

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

Deploy Server