Skip to main content
Glama
PhialsBasement

GitHub MCP Server Plus

update_issue

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

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

  • MCP tool handler for 'update_issue': parses input schema, extracts parameters, calls the updateIssue helper, and returns the result as JSON.
    case "update_issue": {
      const args = issues.UpdateIssueOptionsSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const { owner, repo, issue_number, ...options } = args;
      const result = await issues.updateIssue(owner, repo, issue_number, options);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • index.ts:128-132 (registration)
    Registration of the 'update_issue' tool in the MCP server's tool list, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "update_issue",
      description: "Update an existing issue in a GitHub repository",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(issues.UpdateIssueOptionsSchema)
    },
  • Zod schema defining the input structure for the 'update_issue' tool, including 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(),
    });
  • Helper function that executes the GitHub API PATCH request to update the specified issue with provided options.
    export async function updateIssue(
      owner: string,
      repo: string,
      issue_number: number,
      options: Omit<z.infer<typeof UpdateIssueOptionsSchema>, "owner" | "repo" | "issue_number">
    ) {
      return githubRequest(
        `https://api.github.com/repos/${owner}/${repo}/issues/${issue_number}`,
        {
          method: "PATCH",
          body: options,
        }
      );
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when invalid parameters are provided. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the essential information without any wasted words. It follows a clear 'verb + resource' structure that makes the tool's purpose immediately apparent despite its brevity.

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?

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, what the response looks like, error conditions, or authentication requirements. Given the complexity of GitHub issue updates and the complete lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more contextual information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 9 parameters, the description provides no additional semantic information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'owner' and 'repo' refer to, what format 'issue_number' should be in, or what the 'state' enum values mean. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'update_pull_request_branch' that also perform updates on different GitHub resources.

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. With sibling tools like 'create_issue', 'delete_issue', 'get_issue', and 'list_issues', there's no indication of when updating is appropriate versus creating new issues or retrieving existing ones. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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