Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
github-updates

github-updates

by Soller211
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_issue

Fetch a GitHub issue or pull request by repo and number, returning its full body and comments for review or update drafting.

Instructions

Detalle de un issue o pull request: cuerpo completo y comentarios.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (full body plus comments), which is useful behavioral context beyond a bare read. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or not-found/error behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single tight sentence with the resource and returned payload front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 two-required-parameter fetch tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is under-specified. It omits parameter formats, error cases, and any relation to the sibling search tool.

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% and neither 'repo' nor 'number' is explained in the description. The agent gets no hint about accepted repo format (owner/name?) or whether 'number' is the issue/PR identifier, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('get' implied by 'Detalle de') and resource (issue or pull request), and enumerates the payload ('cuerpo completo y comentarios'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_issues.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_issues, nor any precondition or exclusion. An agent must infer that 'Detalle' means single-item retrieval by number, but no routing guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools