Retrieve a GitHub issue by its number to access its stored metadata.
Look up one issue by number and return its stored metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| repo | No | ||
| found | Yes | ||
| state | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| labels | No | ||
| number | Yes | ||
| comments | No | ||
| closed_at | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| state_reason | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Look up' which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and 'return its stored metadata' clarifies the outcome. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but for a simple getter, this level of transparency is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, immediately conveying the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single required parameter and an output schema (as indicated by context signals), so the return value is documented. The description fully enables an agent to call the tool correctly: provide a number, get the issue's metadata. No critical information is missing for this simple, well-scoped tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 adds the phrase 'by number' which confirms that the 'number' parameter is the issue number, but this is already implicit from the tool name. The description provides minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Look up' with a clear resource 'one issue by number' and states the action 'return its stored metadata'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_similar_issues, find_duplicates, and classify_component, which perform different operations. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have an issue number and want its metadata, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, such as using search_similar_issues for fuzzy matches. Since the tool is straightforward and the context is self-evident, this earns a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.