Retrieve issues from a Gitee repository using owner and repo names, with optional filtering by state or labels. Supports issue tracking, triage, and review.
列出仓库 Issue，支持按状态/标签过滤
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | 仓库名 | |
| owner | Yes | 仓库所有者 | |
| state | No | 默认 open | |
| labels | No | 逗号分隔标签，可选 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, how many issues are returned, pagination behavior, or ordering. For a listing tool with zero structured behavioral hints, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its filter capability come first. It is appropriately sized for an operation of this simplicity, though slightly terse given the missing behavioral context.
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?
The core purpose and filters are covered, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about the read-only nature and return/pagination behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-parameter listing tool.
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%, so repo, owner, state, and labels are already documented in the schema, including the state enum default. The description's mention of state/label filtering adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('列出仓库 Issue') plus the supported filtering axes, so an agent knows this is a read-list tool. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_repo_stats or list_stargazers, but the verb/resource pair is unambiguous against create_issue/update_issue.
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 sentence describes capability ('支持按状态/标签过滤') rather than when to pick this tool over get_repo_stats, list_stargazers, or the create/update siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing – usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.