Skip to main content
Glama

Gitea: Get issue

gitea_get_issue
Read-only

Retrieve a Gitea issue by number using its site, owner, repository, and issue number to view issue details and support repository tracking.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get details of a specific issue by number.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes
issue_numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that -- it does not say whether comments, labels, or milestone data are included in the result, nor what happens for a nonexistent issue number. For a lookup tool with annotation coverage, this is minimal added value.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

Four required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, so the agent must guess both identifier formats and the shape of the response. The description does not fill either gap, leaving it thin for a tool that requires a fully qualified site/owner/repo/issue tuple.

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 carries the full burden, yet 'by number' is the only hint and it maps loosely to issue_number. The three other required parameters -- site, owner, repo -- get no guidance on expected formats (URL vs hostname, slug conventions) anywhere in the definition.

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 and resource -- 'Get details of a specific issue' -- plus the addressing key ('by number'), which separates it from the list/create/close/update issue siblings by name alone. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, which keeps it from 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over gitea_list_issue_comments or gitea_update_issue, and no prerequisites such as needing an existing issue number or read access. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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