Skip to main content
Glama
TaylorChen

Multi-MCPs

by TaylorChen

create_issue

Create GitHub issues to track bugs, features, or tasks in repositories. Specify repository owner, name, title, and optional description to add new issues.

Instructions

Create an issue in a repository

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYes
repoYes
titleYes
bodyNo

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'create_issue' tool. It validates the input arguments (owner, repo, title, optional body), checks for GitHub token configuration, and delegates to the GitHubClient's createIssue method to POST a new issue.
    async create_issue(args: Record<string, unknown>) {
      if (!cfg.githubToken) throw new Error("GITHUB_TOKEN is not configured");
      const owner = String(args.owner || "");
      const repo = String(args.repo || "");
      const title = String(args.title || "");
      const body = args.body ? String(args.body) : undefined;
      if (!owner || !repo || !title) throw new Error("owner, repo and title are required");
      return client.createIssue(owner, repo, title, body);
    },
  • The input schema definition for the 'create_issue' tool, specifying properties for owner, repo, title (required), and optional body as strings.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        owner: { type: "string" },
        repo: { type: "string" },
        title: { type: "string" },
        body: { type: "string" },
      },
      required: ["owner", "repo", "title"],
    },
  • The tool registration entry in the tools array of registerGitHub(), including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "create_issue",
      description: "Create an issue in a repository",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          owner: { type: "string" },
          repo: { type: "string" },
          title: { type: "string" },
          body: { type: "string" },
        },
        required: ["owner", "repo", "title"],
      },
    },
  • Helper method in GitHubClient class that makes the actual API request to create an issue using POST to /repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues.
    createIssue(owner: string, repo: string, title: string, body?: string) {
      return this.request(`/repos/${owner}/${repo}/issues`, {
        method: "POST",
        body: { title, body },
      });
    }
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. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns issue ID). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of a creation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, parameter meanings, or behavioral aspects like authentication requirements. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent with inadequate information to use it effectively.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. With 4 parameters (owner, repo, title, body) and 3 required, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what's inferred from the tool name.

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 'Create an issue in a repository' clearly states the action (create) and resource (issue in a repository), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_card' or 'create_page' by specifying the repository context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'update_card'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., repository access), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_repository_info' or 'list_commits' that might be used in conjunction. It's a basic statement without contextual usage advice.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TaylorChen/muti-mcps'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server