github-devhub-mcp

github.get_issue

Fetch a GitHub issue's metadata by specifying owner, repository, and issue number.

Instructions

Get an issue (not a PR) by number, with metadata.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "github.get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`issue_number`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get ... with metadata,' which vaguely implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what metadata is returned, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is a significant gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It distinguishes from PRs but does not address potential use cases or alternatives further. The 'with metadata' phrase is vague, and the lack of annotations leaves behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 description must compensate. It only reinforces 'issue_number' via 'by number' but does not explain 'owner' or 'repo' or any parameter constraints or formats. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'issue', and explicitly distinguishes from PRs by saying 'not a PR', which differentiates it from github.get_pr. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies that this tool is for issues rather than PRs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like github.get_pr, github.list_issues, or github.create_issue. The guidance is present but only implicit.

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

Deploy Server