Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CONTRI

CONTRI

by alphasafal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Find issues to take

find_issues
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find open GitHub issues in a repository, including beginner-friendly unassigned tasks. Filter by label, search terms, activity, and page to pick an issue to work on.

Instructions

Open issues in one repository, newest activity first; defaults to beginner labels without an assignee. Comment claims are not checked: confirm with check_issue(s). 3 requests signed in, 2 anonymous.

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_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
repoYesowner/name or a github.com URL
sortNo
forceNoBypass the cache (costs requests)
labelNodefault beginner = good first issue or help wanted
limitNodefault 10
queryNoSearch words (no qualifiers)
unassignedNodefault true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: current rate budget ('3 requests signed in, 2 anonymous'), the sort order actually applied, and the default filter behavior. Cache behavior is only indirectly signaled via the force parameter's schema text.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, the defaults, the verification caveat, and the cost. Scope and defaults are front-loaded; there is no filler.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, ordering, cost, and a major caveat about unverified claims. Return shape, pagination behavior, and how limit and page interact are left to the schema, which is acceptable but a small gap.

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 75%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds meaning for the defaults on label and unassigned and clarifies the effective sort order ('newest activity first'), but says nothing about page/limit interplay or the query parameter's effect.

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 ('Open issues in one repository'), plus scope details: newest activity first, default filters. It names check_issue(s) as the tool that verifies comment claims, so an agent can tell what this tool does not do. It stops short of differentiating from unrelated siblings like repo_health, but those are different resources.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The default filters (beginner labels, unassigned) make the intended use case ('find issues to take') concrete, and the line 'Comment claims are not checked: confirm with check_issue(s)' explicitly routes the agent to the alternative when claim verification is needed. It doesn't state when to avoid this tool or when to prefer check_issues for bulk lookups, but the context is clear.

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