huly_get_issueFetch a full Huly issue with its description and comments by internal ID or human-readable identifier such as PROJ-12.
Fetch a full issue by internal ID or human identifier (e.g. PROJ-12), including its description and comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | No | Internal issue ID | |
| identifier | No | Issue identifier, e.g. PROJ-12 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose error behavior (e.g., if the issue is not found) or any permissions. It does mention return content (description and comments), which adds some context, but leaves behavioral aspects largely implicit.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and key details without any fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and identification methods in minimal words.
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?
For a simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is decent but incomplete. It mentions the return includes description and comments, but does not clarify that at least one identifier parameter is required (the schema has no required fields), nor does it mention error handling or the exact response format. These are notable gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it restates that either internal ID or human identifier can be used, which is already present in the param descriptions. It does not clarify the constraint that exactly one of the two is needed, or what happens if both are provided.
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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a full issue, with specific identification methods (internal ID or human identifier like PROJ-12). It distinguishes from siblings like huly_list_issues (listing) and huly_comment_issue (commenting) by focusing on retrieval of a single issue with full details.
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?
The description implies when to use it (to get a full issue) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use this when you need detailed issue info' or contrast with listing tools. The purpose is clear, but guidance on choosing among siblings is only implicit through the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.