Skip to main content
Glama

update_issue

Modify existing GitHub issues by updating titles, descriptions, assignees, labels, milestones, or status to track project changes and progress.

Instructions

Update an existing issue in a GitHub repository

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYes
repoYes
issue_numberYes
titleNo
bodyNo
assigneesNo
milestoneNo
labelsNo
stateNo

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that performs the GitHub API PATCH request to update an issue with the provided options.
    export async function updateIssue(
      github_pat: string,
      owner: string,
      repo: string,
      issue_number: number,
      options: Omit<z.infer<typeof UpdateIssueOptionsSchema>, "owner" | "repo" | "issue_number">
    ) {
      return githubRequest(
        github_pat,
        `https://api.github.com/repos/${owner}/${repo}/issues/${issue_number}`,
        {
          method: "PATCH",
          body: options,
        }
      );
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the update_issue tool, including required owner, repo, issue_number and optional update fields.
    export const UpdateIssueOptionsSchema = z.object({
      owner: z.string(),
      repo: z.string(),
      issue_number: z.number(),
      title: z.string().optional(),
      body: z.string().optional(),
      assignees: z.array(z.string()).optional(),
      milestone: z.number().optional(),
      labels: z.array(z.string()).optional(),
      state: z.enum(["open", "closed"]).optional(),
    });
  • src/index.ts:134-137 (registration)
    Registration of the update_issue tool in the MCP server's listTools response, specifying name, description, and input schema.
      name: "update_issue",
      description: "Update an existing issue in a GitHub repository",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(issues.UpdateIssueOptionsSchema)
    },
  • src/index.ts:491-498 (registration)
    Handler case in the MCP server's CallToolRequest switch that parses arguments, calls the updateIssue function, and formats the response.
    case "update_issue": {
      const argsWithPat = issues._UpdateIssueOptionsSchema.parse(params.arguments);
      const { github_pat, owner, repo, issue_number, ...options } = argsWithPat;
      const result = await issues.updateIssue(github_pat, owner, repo, issue_number, options);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Extended schema used internally for parsing tool arguments, adding the github_pat field.
    export const _UpdateIssueOptionsSchema = UpdateIssueOptionsSchema.extend({
      github_pat: z.string().describe("GitHub Personal Access Token"),
    });
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description fails to mention critical behaviors: required permissions (e.g., write access to the repository), whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., notifications to assignees), or error conditions (e.g., invalid issue numbers). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with 9 parameters.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing issue') and specifies the context ('in a GitHub repository') efficiently. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 (9 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, error handling, return values, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. For a mutation tool with many parameters, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'owner', 'repo', 'issue_number', or any other fields represent, their formats (e.g., GitHub usernames for 'assignees'), or how they interact. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing issue in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_issue' (for creating new issues) and 'add_issue_comment' (for adding comments rather than modifying the issue itself). However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue number), contrast with 'create_issue' for new issues, or specify scenarios like editing issue metadata versus adding comments (which would use 'add_issue_comment'). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MissionSquad/mcp-github'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server