List GitHub repository issues, most recently updated first, with number, title, state, author, and labels. Filter by open, closed, or all states to quickly find relevant issues.
List issues in the GitHub repository, most recently updated first. Returns issue number, title, state, author, and labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | Filter issues by state. Defaults to open issues. | open |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' signals a non-mutating read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral details: sort order and the specific fields returned. It doesn't mention pagination or access requirements, but nothing suggests hidden side effects.
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 two focused sentences: the first states the action and ordering, the second lists return fields. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant detail.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and ordering. It omits pagination details and doesn't address how the repository is scoped, but those are minor and the tool remains callable with the state parameter alone.
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 schema fully documents the only parameter, 'state', including its enum values and default. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 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?
The description clearly identifies the action ('List'), the resource ('issues in the GitHub repository'), and adds a helpful ordering detail ('most recently updated first'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from search_issues, but the verb and return fields make the basic purpose clear.
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 gives no guidance on when to use list_issues rather than search_issues, create_issue, or add_comment. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case 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.