gfi-scout

check_issue_status

Check the current status of a GitHub issue to see if it's open for contribution. Provide the issue URL for an immediate availability check.

Instructions

Check whether a specific GitHub issue is actually available to work on.

Args:
    issue_url: Full GitHub issue URL.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue_url": "<issue_url>"
    },
    "name": "check_issue_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue_url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	No
`is_stale`	Yes
`issue_url`	Yes
`is_assigned`	Yes
`has_linked_pr`	Yes
`last_activity`	Yes
`competitor_prs`	Yes
`availability_verdict`	Yes
`maintainer_confirmed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the core purpose without disclosing behavioral details such as authentication requirements, what 'available' means (e.g., open, unassigned, not locked), or potential side effects. This leaves the agent to infer the tool's safety and conditions.

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, leading with the purpose, then the parameter definition. Every word is functional.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic operation but lacks context on what 'available' entails, when to choose this over find_issues, and any prerequisites. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description clarifies that the parameter should be a 'Full GitHub issue URL' (not just an issue number), adding meaning beyond the schema's basic 'Issue Url' string. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is helpful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'check' and resource 'specific GitHub issue', clearly indicating it verifies availability of a single issue. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_issues (searching) and check_repo_health (repo-level).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies it should be used when you have a specific issue URL and want to know if it's workable. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it misses explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server