Retrieve detailed information about a specific GitHub issue by providing repository owner, repository name, and issue number.
Get details of a specific issue in a GitHub repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | ||
| issue_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what details are returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with an external API.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose effectively.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return values, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. For a GitHub API tool, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent use.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters are completely undocumented in structured fields. The description mentions 'specific issue in a GitHub repository' which implies parameters for identifying the issue and repository, but doesn't name or explain the three required parameters (owner, repo, issue_number) or their formats.
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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific issue in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issues' or 'search_issues', which would require more specific language about retrieving a single issue by identifier.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_issues' or 'search_issues'. It mentions retrieving a 'specific issue' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing the issue number) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk retrieval).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.