Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RepoPilot MCP

RepoPilot MCP

by adity0208
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

find_starter_issues

Discovers beginner-friendly GitHub issues in a repository using explainable heuristics, confidence tiers, and evidence links so newcomers can identify starter tasks.

Instructions

Discovers potentially beginner-friendly GitHub issues for a repository using explainable heuristics, confidence tiers, and evidence links.

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>"
    },
    "name": "find_starter_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesGitHub repository in 'owner/name' format (e.g., 'facebook/react' or 'adity0208/repopilot-mcp')
limitNoMaximum number of issues to return (1-15, default 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses heuristic/explainable methodology and that results include confidence tiers and evidence links, but it omits read-only nature, authentication or rate-limit needs, pagination, and result ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase contributes purpose, method, or output cue.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter discovery tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand intent and the kind of evidence returned. It could be more complete with explicit usage boundaries and mention of pagination or read-only behavior.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'repo' format and the 'limit' bounds/default. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond 'for a repository', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Discovers'), resource ('GitHub issues'), qualifier ('beginner-friendly'), and scope ('for a repository'). It is clear, but there are no sibling tools to distinguish from, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 usage by naming beginner-friendly issue discovery for a repository, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other search approaches are provided.

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